Nasa spending on outer space...what about Earth ???

[astrovineet]

Dear Friends

The Nasa scientists are wasting 16 Billion $ in 2007, as John mentioned, but if Nasa try to help using the money in killing Terrorism, killing corruption, ending poverty, protecting Ozone layer.

I am confused that what Nasa is trying to hunt there, and why not use funds here to help and utilize here ??

Is that some people are showing expences and making their own earnings?? Nasa should stop spending money for outer space... There is a lot of space for spending and using money here on our planet itself.

Once there is no terror, no poverty, no corruption, no illness.. I think it will be easier and cheaper to find whatever Nasa want to find or discover in outer space.

They should try to discover here on Earth first, what need to be...

Sorry.. but these are my personal Thoughts.. and my vision

Viineet Jain

[John Scott]

NASA is a colossal waste of money, IMHO.

[t.analiza011885]

they are only wasting their money... 16 Billion $???wow!!! watttaaa...big big money..... billions of $ that could help 100's of billion people

[chicgeek]

Originally Posted by John Scott

NASA is a colossal waste of money, IMHO.

Agreed.

Moved to politics, as it's government spending.

[Zap]

Nasa's job is to explore space, not solve the problems of terrorism, illness, corruption or poverty.
Over the long haul, the discoveries and advances in science made by Nasa will benefit us all greatly and may just save the human race from eventual destruction.
It seems to me that they already are saving the planet.

[G10]

NASA aren't saving this planet dude, they are just trying to find a way of populating another one so that we can mess that one up as well

If they had the technology to get man on every planet, that would just allow us to mess up the entire universe

[StrongInTheArm]

"Its national economy is the largest in the world, with a nominal 2006 gross domestic product (GDP) of more than US$13 trillion."
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

16/13000*100=0.12%

ODA=Official Development Aid
"The United States is the world's largest contributor of ODA in absolute terms ($15.7 billion, 2003), but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003)."
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid

By my reckoning that means, generally the US spends slightly more on development aid than it does on NASA.

I my opinion it could afford to spend more on both. Compared to Europe it has very low tax levels.

[3ncryptabl3_lick]

NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They’re primary mission is space exploration, sciences and aeronautics. Having grown out of NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics), NASA continued their pioneering 40 year research on flight technology. If it wasn't for NASA the world we live in today would be very different.

I think what you are all missing is that allot of what NASA develops be it for themselves or the military, usually filters down to the private sector. The first weather and communications satellites were developed by NASA. If it wasn't for NASA and it's spending there would be allot of things we wouldn't have that we currently take for granted. Not to mention the funding NASA puts in place for the current development of Earth sciences and technology which has become the basis for development in the medical, industrial and a slew of other industries.

If it wasn’t for the Space Shuttle, the private sector wouldn’t have access to space as readily for experiments and scientific research.

I don't believe global poverty can be 'fixed' by diverting funding from NASA. Not at all. in fact, 'fixing' global poverty is impossible. By its shear nature, conflict, economy, ecology and environment there is no amount of money that can. Most people think it can be ‘fixed’ and for those people there are private and corporate entities they can make donations to. That concept alone is a level of placation.

Now I’m not saying NASA doesn’t ‘waste’ money, but what corporation doesn’t?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by G10

NASA aren't saving this planet dude, they are just trying to find a way of populating another one so that we can mess that one up as well

If they had the technology to get man on every planet, that would just allow us to mess up the entire universe

I hear what you're saying, dude.
I believe that the main primary goal of life is to perpetuate itself. Life's purpose is to create more life.
We all know now what happened to the dinosaurs and why. It's only a matter of time before the next Earth altering meteor or comet strikes us.
It's not a question of "If", but "When".

If humanity is to survive, long term, it's not wise for us to have all of our eggs in this one basket. If we don't move out into the cosmos, we're doomed.

[TheFriend]

You are right people.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

[TheFriend]

did'nt know it before..........lol

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by Zap

I hear what you're saying, dude.
I believe that the main primary goal of life is to perpetuate itself. Life's purpose is to create more life.
We all know now what happened to the dinosaurs and why. It's only a matter of time before the next Earth altering meteor or comet strikes us.
It's not a question of "If", but "When".

If humanity is to survive, long term, it's not wise for us to have all of our eggs in this one basket. If we don't move out into the cosmos, we're doomed.

i almost could agree with you, but i am pessimistic enough to believe, that humans are "dumb" enough, to screw up a second chance in outer space as well.

and----i think we don´t need to wait for the next meteor!

[John Scott]

If the govt had trees that grew money, and there was so much money that people could work 3 hours a month and spent the rest of their time with their children, and the government did not impose obscene tax burdens and prison sentences on people to collect the billions of dollars that NASA wastes, I would support NASA 100%.

[StrongInTheArm]

For your consideration: Comet Shoemaker Levy Nine http://www.nineplanets.org/sl9.html

If you know anything about astronomy you will know that it is not a matter of if but when this will happen to Earth, again.

• Who is going to detect an asteroid is coming our way,
• and who are you going to put in charge of doing something about it?
• Where is their expertise gonna come from?
• How would they have developed that expertise?

If you still think we are immune then look up Tunguska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

[John Scott]

You suppose NASA will save us from stray asteroids?

[eXweso]

I support you to a certain extent but they also are thinking about the future. After some years there won't be space for us to live on earth and they are researching from now on to make sure that the coming generations do not suffer

Just my

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You suppose NASA will save us from stray asteroids?

No, but I do hope that humanity can at least try. It is in the realm of the possible if we are fore warned.

Is not trying acceptable?


(I'm gonna have to get a serious face for these discussions )

[John Scott]

Is not trying acceptable?

Trying, intelligently, is one thing. Academics do that well. It has nothing to do with the tens of billions of dollars that NASA wastes every year.

Saying that we need NASA to waste tens of billions of dollars every year to save us from an asteroid that may or may not hit us within the next ten thousand years is like saying we need to add flotation devices to every single shirt sold in the world.

Which would save more people? The flotation devices. People do actually drown. People do not, on a regular basis, get hit by asteroids.

Or, to draw another parallel: On the off chance that an asteroid will hit us, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year. Well, if we've got billions to waste, why not use it intelligently? (I'm using the term extremely loosely.) Roughly 325,000 people die every year, out of hospital, from cardiac arrest. For less money than NASA spends in a year, we can give every man, woman and child in the US a portable defibrillator.

Sound like a good idea? It will undoubtedly save thousands of lives. But my guess is, you're against it, no?