Should Americans Continue To Fund NASA?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Yes, Zap. because we've allowed it to become a global economy.

Nobody "allowed" it to happen. It was an inevitability, from the very first transaction that ever took place. People want to do business with new people. That goes for doing business on a local, regional, national, international level. New customers = growth.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Gee, I sure miss the days when we did business with our neighbors right here in the good ol' US of A, when the USA was good...

There are still plenty of ways to support your local businesses. Food is a great example. I always buy Canadian when the choice is there. I know the food will be fresher and taste better and often cheaper. Your local farmer's market is a great way to buy healthier foods from local business and put your money into the pockets of your own farmers.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

But in a global economy we need certain minerals and chemicals from other lands that we can't find here to make certain products that we ship overseas. But when China begins instituting policys that protect their own industries while we don't, such as pricing Chinese-mined minerals to their own countrymen at hundreds of dollars per ton less than they will sell it to us, isn't that protectionist?

Yes it is and sooner or later they will suffer for it. And, I would submit that there are other reasons their products are cheaper, like labour costs.
But, surely China isn't the only place on Earth to buy these minerals and chemicals. If China is jacking the price on these items, then they will lose out a lot of business to other countries which have the same thing for sale much cheaper.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Protectionism is not good in a global economy, I agree, but we need to make sure that no country has protectionist policies to make it work.

I think the market itself will take care of that, long term.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Kev, sorry, but I think the U.S. has already fallen behind and will fall even further behind, whether we keep pouring money into space exploration or not.

There are several factors that affect "where" the USA stands as a world leader. One of them is free trade.

Americans invent stuff, then send it over seas to be made. But regardless of where its made, the USA is a world leader, and always will be. And why is that? Because we hate failures and we hate being in second place.

For hundreds of years the USA has pulled the greatest minds from the rest of the world. At one time england had a law saying that no professional could go to America.

We have some of the best college and universities in the world. People go there to learn, so they can go to work at places like NASA. That one organization has set a goal for generations of children.

[Laura Varon]

Are our elected leaders doing what is best for us by launching rockets to the moon?

You shouldn't even be allowed to vote if you think that "launching rockets to the moon" is all the NASA does. How about the scientific investigation and medical advances made thanks to the space program? The ones that all of mankind have drawn benefit from?

There are many ways to pay off debt, not just through money. There's only one way to make science: investing in it.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Laura Varon

You shouldn't even be allowed to vote if you think that "launching rockets to the moon" is all the NASA does.(...)

I think that we should probably start screening people before they are allowed to procreate, as well.

[Allen Farlow]

Allow me to repost my original post:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/0...ons/index.html

Yippee, we're going to...the moon?

Americans just spent another $450 million to launch a couple probes to, yes, the moon.

We are in debt up to our eyeballs to foreign countries yet our government continues to spend as if there's no problem?

Should we continue allowing the government to waste our money like this? (I definietely see it as a waste of money.)

Is NASA, as has been said about AIG, too big to be allowed to fail?

What will be accomplished by sending probes to the moon? It's not as if mankind will be able to just fly over to it and live there when we kill this planet. It doesn't have oxygen.

I think it's wishful thinking and a complete waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent paying off our debt to the rest of the world. (The interest alone will keep America enslaved to other countries for generations to come.)

Are our elected leaders doing what is best for us by launching rockets to the moon?


Now that you've (hopefully) read what I originally posted, let me ask this:

What do you think will be accomplished by launching unmanned probes to the moon? Will we find life on another planet? Medical advances? Signs of former life on a rock that has no atmosphere? How will that help us today or tomorrow?

$450 million is a lot of money to blow revisiting where man has already gone before.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

There are several factors that affect "where" the USA stands as a world leader. One of them is free trade.

Americans invent stuff, then send it over seas to be made. But regardless of where its made, the USA is a world leader, and always will be. And why is that? Because we hate failures and we hate being in second place.

Sending things overseas to be made is one reason why the U.S. has lost jobs...free trade is not even trade. The U.S. was a great nation when it was a manufacturing nation. Sending jobs overseas and closing U.S. plants and firing American workers is not a viable option.

I think the U.S. has spent too much time looking out for everyone else and not enough time looking out for ourselves. (Not to mention our poor leadership passing things such as NAFTA.)

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by Atom

I think that we should probably start screening people before they are allowed to procreate, as well.

Or perhaps screening people before they are allowed to post?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Or perhaps screening people before they are allowed to post?

I have no idea where she got the idea that "you think that "launching rockets to the moon" is all the NASA does".

[Allen Farlow]

Nasa's good for Florida tourism...Houston Space Center, too...

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

What will be accomplished by sending probes to the moon?

First sentence of the news article you linked:

Originally Posted by CNN

Two unmanned NASA spacecraft reached the moon's orbit Tuesday morning and began the process of mapping its surface for future missions.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

What do you think will be accomplished by launching unmanned probes to the moon?

The purpose, as I understand it, is to identify a suitable site for building a base/launching pad to eventually send manned missions to Mars.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/

The process of developing/building a moon base does present some engineering/technological challenges that will likely lead to new innovations. $

[Allen Farlow]

Thanks Bernard, I didn't catch that!

So that's why the US sent a rocket back to the moon, to scope out a suitable place to build a launch pad, so we can send people to Mars.

Considering that according to this website it takes 260 Earth days to travel from Earth to Mars directly (launching from the moon won't make a lot of difference) and another 260 Earth days to get back, the crew will run out of oxygen before they even get close to getting home, won't they?

[StrongInTheArm]

The biggest hurdle to manned exploration of Mars is fuel consumption. To take all the fuel you will need into orbit with you is prohibitively expensive.

There is water on the moon. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, two chemicals that can be used as fuel.

Thus the theory goes like this. You build a moon base where astronauts or robots can obtain and store water. Most of this water will then be converted into fuel. Since gravity on the moon is much lower, much less fuel will be wasted getting fuel into space. Thus the mission costs much less.

Also the Earth or moon can be used to sling shot a craft towards Mars, effectively increasing its speed and using much less fuel to do so.

This IS rocket science!

[Hades]

Considering that according to this website it takes 260 Earth days to travel from Earth to Mars directly (launching from the moon won't make a lot of difference) and another 260 Earth days to get back, the crew will run out of oxygen before they even get close to getting home, won't they?

It is the big quests that make our civilization advance, Allen.
Surely when Leonardo was trying to build his flying machine, or Pascal his calculator many people though they were wasting money because nobody saw a direct benefit in their inventions in the short term. Who would need a helicopter in the XV century? or a computer with the size of a room that required loads of money in maintenance when people still could make calculations in paper for free?

If we stick to what we have we are wasting money. Like I told you in the previous post, the people who elaborated the budget distribution are not idiots, they know what science is about and they know the potential benefits of research.

[Brian]

If anyone is interested in further helping NASA accomplish their goal, feel free to contact them about staying in bed for 90 days

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

... (launching from the moon won't make a lot of difference) ...

Wrong!

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

The biggest hurdle to manned exploration of Mars is fuel consumption. ...

Correct.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Laura Varon

How about the scientific investigation and medical advances made thanks to the space program? The ones that all of mankind have drawn benefit from?

1. Mankind does not benefit from being coerced into supporting NASA. Even if coercing a fat man to diet will prolong his life by 20 years, he's still not benefiting from it because he's a victim of coercion first and foremost.

2. NASA didn't develop anything that couldn't have been developed cheaper by private industry, without coercion.

3. How about, you support NASA if you want to, and refrain from imposing your morality on others?

Originally Posted by Laura Varon

There are many ways to pay off debt, not just through money.

So when I get my next statement from Visa, I could send in some good will, or a list of ideas how they could improve their marketing?

Originally Posted by Laura Varon

There's only one way to make science: investing in it.

When your first choice in funding such investment is to force others to do so, there's a fundamental flaw in your social contract theory.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

It's precisely because of past funding that the satellites are there in the first place.

NASA didn't launch the first satellite. Russia did. NASA is not necessary to launching of satellites, and certainly not so important as to justify forcing people to fund it.

[Zap]

NASA didn't launch the first satellite. Russia did.

I thought most people knew that, but, again, thank you for stating the obvious.

NASA is not necessary to launching of satellites, and certainly not so important as to justify forcing people to fund it.

Never said it was.
Sputnik has, long ago, fallen from orbit.
So, I guess that it doesn't exactly hold up as proof that NASA is not necessary to the launching of satellites.
While I agree that NASA is not the only game in town, they certainly send up enough of them to be considered a player.

[John Scott]

Never said it was.

Never said it was what? Important? You said "It's precisely because of past funding (Of NASA) that the satellites are there in the first place."

So, I guess that it doesn't exactly hold up as proof that NASA is not necessary to the launching of satellites.

Actually, yes, it does hold up an proof that NASA isn't necessary to launch satellites. The fact that NASA wasn't involved in the launch, and it launched successfully, fully proves the point that NASA isn't necessary.

The fact that NASA launches satellites that cost $280 million and they immediately crash into the ocean, it just bolsters that point.

While I agree that NASA is not the only game in town, they certainly send up enough of them to be considered a player.

A minute ago you were saying "It's precisely because of past funding that the satellites are there in the first place." You were saying that NASA was precisely the reason why satellites are in orbit. Now they are just a "player"?

[Hades]

1. Mankind does not benefit from being coerced into supporting NASA. Even if coercing a fat man to diet will prolong his life by 20 years, he's still not benefiting from it because he's a victim of coercion first and foremost.

You are not coerced to support NASA, instead you have the right to support your government and its activities, which are the ones that they think will benefit all of the population in the short or long term. As Kennedy said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

It is a mistake to think that as a tax payer you are funding NASA, you are funding the United States Department of the Treasury. And this year the 0.55% of that treasury went to NASA, next year it is supposed to be 0.52% (source), if you think that is something to be worried about, ask yourself what benefit gives to the United States funding an army in Iraq (21% of the budget: source).

2. NASA didn't develop anything that couldn't have been developed cheaper by private industry, without coercion.

You should be proud of NASA, not despise its contribution to your country. If you really believe their expenditures outweighs the benefits you should take a look at some statistics. Again, I would like to know what kind of benefits gives to the American people to have an army in a foreign country that does not even represent a threat to them.

Did you consider what could happen if NASA disappeared and the private companies took over the space exploration? They have the right to hide the results of their investigation and sell them at any price they wanted to the best payer. Which is something that could result even more costly than funding the NASA research. In that situation these private companies would become very powerful independent entities that blackmail the government whenever they want.

Any American federal agency can query the NASA databases and have access to all the material from their investigation, if they have enough equipment and skills they can even start their own investigation based on the NASA research. Which is something that you cannot expect from a private company.