NASA received a HUGE budget cut under Bush...


But anyway, Obama has already said that some things will have to be scrapped until the economy improves...

Unfortunately Obama's vision is not for a better future, but for a short term quick fix, as did all the previous presidents, and only has a very narrow and very short vision.

Quick fixes never fix anything, they only prolong the inevitable, what remains is the inevitable and soon the inevitable comes around to become inevitable.

Only narrow vision and selfishness cannot see byond this, thus deems anything that will put mankind into forward gear is not worth striving for.

We used to be pioneers, now we are nothing but pagans needing to be led to the slaughter. Wars, weapons and death are the only words heard loud and clear by these narrow vision leaders of today. Its sad, pathetic and unfortunately, is how things have been after the days of Kennedy.

Most likely it will continue...unitl that very last bomb, that very last bullit, that very last body drops to the floor and ther are no more bodies left to hit the button, pull the trigger, bury that last body.




Cheers!!!!

I'm all for space exploration. However, I really don't think it's wise to throw money at the space program when our country down here on earth is in shambles.

I don't think that NASA is doing has anything to do with space exploration, rather, I think they are building a weapons system up there and calling it a space station. NASA is a farce, and a waste of money. Why not force the government to bring out the real space vehicles, the ones they use on an almost daily basis to go to the Moon and Mars?

Originally posted by nj2day
NASA received a HUGE budget cut under Bush...

Actually, bush increased their funding.

Anyway, what good is education if there is no opportunity to apply it or produce anything with it?

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I'm all for space exploration. However, I really don't think it's wise to throw money at the space program when our country down here on earth is in shambles.

yes, but think of the technology that was a direct result of NASA. Microwave ovens, Velcro, ceramics, etc.

I wish we could donate money to NASA. I would.

Ford, GM, Chrysler.
Machine shops, engineers, people about to be out of work.

They did it for the war effort.
Instead of handing out the money. I'll bet there are various contributions these American manufacturing companies could do, in a partnership with NASA.
A little bit of American pride, especially this kind, could go a long way.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I'll bet there are various contributions these American manufacturing companies could do, in a partnership with NASA.

Well GM and Boeing worked together on the Apollo Lunar Rover. So it's happened before.

Instead stealing money from NASA, why doesn't Obama clean up all the money wasted by welfare and national defense? I don't mean that either of those two areas are wastes of money themselves, but both are terribly inefficient at spending their budgets. How about cutting down on pork barrel spending? Ugh. Hopefully Obama changes his mind later and gives NASA the money they need to reach their goals FASTER than they planned to before.

In order to get a better economy Obama should invest heavily on space because to get more money flowing and creating jobs you should open new economic markets and expansions , not only you can get energy , metals and other things from space you can also bring stability cooperation and peace to the world.
Obama should go and get the entire nation focus on a big space faring project.. payed by the state.
If such a project is started with funding , schools and studies should be space focus , building space supporting bases like the one in new mexico .
You have to learn from the past.. Okay Hitler did bad things but he had the nation send to work on the autobahns , creating jobs , ect only to bad he was military focused and went to war but economy up then was great and every body was working and supporting the working population , so instead of investing in to the military branch and go to war like hitler did do the same but then space as focus point . Sorry if what I am trying to explain to say from my head is little hard to write down as I have it in mind .. and I don't want the usa to become a like nazi germany with dictator ship.
But I hope you get the point I am trying to make.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I'm all for space exploration. However, I really don't think it's wise to throw money at the space program when our country down here on earth is in shambles.

So you'd rather cut NASA's already incredibly small budget ($16 billion is nothing compared to the rest if the US budget), thus causing more job losses?

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. However, give me a chance to explain why before you decide I'm a fool.

If you take the time the time to do the research, you'll find that dividing that budget by the number of employees at NASA gives you a number of $941,176 per employee. I don't know about you, but that number shocked me. I would bet my nestegg that a private sector company could do the same work for a small fraction of that money. The problem is that, like every other government agency, over time it has become bloated and wasteful. There's even an official senate report written by McCain floating around discussing their excessive "pork barrel" spending.

Now, on a different but related note, let's take a look at the federal budget. I've seen various sources citing a $438 billion deficit this year. If you or I ran our finances this way, we'd be declaring bankruptcy within a decade if not sooner. The same thing is going to happen to the US if we don't cut spending NOW and pay down the debt. I really think we are 5-10 years from being a 3rd world country if something isn't done. In my opinion, funding NASA for the next 5-10 years should be taking a back seat to keeping the US viable.

Originally posted by jra
Wouldn't it be better to put more money into NASA, fund more projects, which creates more jobs.

Not in my mind. I could take that same $900,000+ per employee and hire ten employees with middle class wages and full benefits.

Originally posted by jra
It also creates new technologies that can be turned into consumer products to be sold here on Earth

I'm not going to argue against the idea that NASA has turned out some useful things. I'm all for funding NASA when our country isn't in immediate danger of failure. Well, assuming they're willing to be properly regulated so that we can be assured they aren't completely wasting our tax money or handing it out to friends.

Originally posted by jra
Why does everyone pick on NASA? Why not take money from the defense budget instead?

That's a great idea. Let's tighten the belt on the defense department too! Did you think I would be against fiscal responsibility?

Originally posted by jra
I mean looks at this. It's rediculous.
NASA gets 0.6%... that's it!

That's .6% we don't have. This is like you or I putting .6% on a credit card and paying interest on it from then on. It's a bad idea to handle your personal finances this way and the same rule should apply to our government.

If the government would just tighten the belt for 10 years, we could kill this debt that's dragging us down and you'd be astonished when you saw the effect on the country. Did you know that we are currently spending $466.5 billion a year just on interest? Can you imagine what we could do with an extra $466 billion a year? Heck, we could double your NASA funding and still be much better off than we are now.



[edit on 28-12-2008 by BlueTriangle]

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. However, give me a chance to explain why before you decide I'm a fool.

If you take the time the time to do the research, you'll find that dividing that budget by the number of employees at NASA gives you a number of $941,176 per employee. I don't know about you, but that number shocked me.

Ever worked for a research institute? I've easily gone through ten times my annual salary in consumable experimental supplies, maybe more. I'm not claiming there's no room for improving the managment of finances at NASA, but that's true of any governmental organization and will always be true for any such organization. What I am saying is that that number should not be so shocking considering what NASA does.

I would bet my nestegg that a private sector company could do the same work for a small fraction of that money.

Name a private sector company that could make a profit doing what NASA does - space exploration. There's no money in anything beyond sub-orbital space tourism and communication satellites, which is why we still need NASA.

The problem is that, like every other government agency, over time it has become bloated and wasteful.

Every government agency is inherently wasteful, it's the nature of the government beast. All you can do is try to expose specific examples of that waste and prevent future occurrences of the same mistake.

In my opinion, funding NASA for the next 5-10 years should be taking a back seat to keeping the US viable.

When the government is writing checks for some 7 trillion dollars, outright canceling NASA won't make a bit of difference. You're missing the forest for the trees. If the government wasn't busy nationalizing the financial and auto industries we might not end up with the fate you describe, but that's for another forum.

Not in my mind. I could take that same $900,000+ per employee and hire ten employees with middle class wages and full benefits.

And not a one of them would be making you a dime if their mission was space exploration. What you're really saying is that we shouldn't explore space because the government likes to waste too much money on socializing the country.

I'm not going to argue against the idea that NASA has turned out some useful things. I'm all for funding NASA when our country isn't in immediate danger of failure.

You can't turn NASA funding on and off whenever times are tough and expect to get anything out of it. "Oh hey, know that mission you already invested in 90% and will be successful when it reaches pluto in a decade? Well, we're canceling your funding for now, so you won't be around to do the needed mid course correction in 6 months..." NASA can't function like that.

That's .6% we don't have.

I won't disagree, but if you did waste cutting in other more wasteful, less producing, and larger problems in the federal budget you could cover FAR more than .6%. Let's start with canceling earmarks for garbage like spinach museums before we start shutting down NASA.

Originally posted by ngchunter
Name a private sector company that could make a profit doing what NASA does - space exploration. There's no money in anything beyond sub-orbital space tourism and communication satellites, which is why we still need NASA.

Admittedly, there is not a private sector equivalent of NASA...yet. I'll offer something similar though just for price comparison.

Virgin Galactic earlier this month unveiled it's new sub-orbiter. It will take 6 passengers 70 miles up. Cost per passenger is $200,000, so $1,200,000 gross for each flight. There's profit worked in there as well so I'm guessing the actual cost to launch is around $1 million.

To contrast this, NASA's own webpage reads "The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission." Now, it is true that the space shuttle goes about twice as high and is fitted for a longer stay...but 450x as much?

Every government agency is inherently wasteful, it's the nature of the government beast. All you can do is try to expose specific examples of that waste and prevent future occurrences of the same mistake.

This really isn't supposed to be a thread about fixing the government spending problem, so I apologize for opening that door in my last post. My response to your post here would normally be a long rant about how the current state of the government doesn't represent the original intent at all...but I'll refrain out of respect for the thread topic.

When the government is writing checks for some 7 trillion dollars, outright canceling NASA won't make a bit of difference. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Well, I think you're missing the trees for the forest...if that makes sense, LOL. Any argument that justifies wasting taxpayer money by pointing to another case of wasting taxpayer money holds zero weight with me.

And not a one of them would be making you a dime if their mission was space exploration. What you're really saying is that we shouldn't explore space because the government likes to waste too much money on socializing the country.

Well, your comment regarded creating jobs by throwing money at NASA. My point was that we could create 10x as many jobs with the same money. You're right that this wouldn't go towards space exploration, but I would argue that it's not doing much good in that area anyways. With the exception of a few billion dollar probes and a telescope, how much space exploration have we really done in the last 30 years?

The second part of your comment I think is just frustration. It certainly doesn't reference any argument I've put forth. I'd like to see the socialization stop too. If Obama puts the social programs he's discussed into effect...we might as well call it quits. Luckily, it seems like he's already changing his stripes since the election. Either he was misleading his voters all along or his new cabinet has filled him in that his programs are going to trash the economy.

I won't disagree, but if you did waste cutting in other more wasteful, less producing, and larger problems in the federal budget you could cover FAR more than .6%. Let's start with canceling earmarks for garbage like spinach museums before we start shutting down NASA.

I agree that we need to make cuts all around. I'm not suggesting that NASA is the only problem and that cutting their funding is going to fix everything. I'm suggesting that the financial situation in the US has gotten to the point that we need to cut everything across the board substantially to get it fixed. After all, NASA is going to be 100% unfunded if the country goes under.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle

Originally posted by ngchunter
Name a private sector company that could make a profit doing what NASA does - space exploration. There's no money in anything beyond sub-orbital space tourism and communication satellites, which is why we still need NASA.

Admittedly, there is not a private sector equivalent of NASA...yet. I'll offer something similar though just for price comparison.

Virgin Galactic earlier this month unveiled it's new sub-orbiter. It will take 6 passengers 70 miles up. Cost per passenger is $200,000, so $1,200,000 gross for each flight. There's profit worked in there as well so I'm guessing the actual cost to launch is around $1 million.

Sub-orbital. Apples and oranges. It takes far less thrust, comparatively simple navigation, only one tracking station/launch/landing facility all rolled into one. You can't even begin to compare that to the shuttle.

To contrast this, NASA's own webpage reads "The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission." Now, it is true that the space shuttle goes about twice as high and is fitted for a longer stay...but 450x as much?

It's not the height that matters, it's the speed. Even if you can manage the speed (virgin galactic isn't even close), who's going to monitor it on the ground 24hrs a day, 7 days a week during a mission? And how? Who's going to run and maintain a worldwide array of tracking stations? You can't compare the two at all.

This really isn't supposed to be a thread about fixing the government spending problem, so I apologize for opening that door in my last post. My response to your post here would normally be a long rant about how the current state of the government doesn't represent the original intent at all...but I'll refrain out of respect for the thread topic.

I agree in principle. I believe in getting back to the original intent of the government, cutting back on its role and handing it off to private companies wherever possible. That includes any space mission with a possibility for privatization, I just don't see that with deep space exploration or even orbital missions just yet. In 20-50 years I expect that we'll be seeing the first private space stations and can hand off responsibility for orbital missions. What we have now is a more advanced (and expensive) form of Lewis and Clark. The end goal should be privatization though.

Well, I think you're missing the trees for the forest...if that makes sense, LOL. Any argument that justifies wasting taxpayer money by pointing to another case of wasting taxpayer money holds zero weight with me.

I don't see it as waste personally, especially relative to truly wasteful spending. I'd like to see the truly wasteful spending cut first before we talk about cutting NASA.

With the exception of a few billion dollar probes and a telescope, how much space exploration have we really done in the last 30 years?

Most probes cost in the millions, not billions. And the amount we've learned from it all is amazing to me. We have a FAR better understanding of our own solar system than we did 30 years ago.

If Obama puts the social programs he's discussed into effect...we might as well call it quits. Luckily, it seems like he's already changing his stripes since the election.

Personally I haven't let down my guard just yet. Some have suggested his cabinet picks are to pacify areas he cares less about so that he can focus on creating new social programs out of whole cloth. Whatever the case I'll give props or criticism once he is president and starts making the actual decisions.

I really don't think you and I are all that different politically. But rather than just cut NASA I'd rather see the assets handed off to private companies as aerospace companies reach a point of sophistication of being able to utilize them and make a profit off of it independent of government assistance. SpaceX is a good example; they're starting to convert one of the launch complexes out at Cape Kennedy for their newest Falcon launcher. Eventually, if all goes according to plan, they'll have a whole line of small, medium, and heavy unmanned launchers (and unlike the big contractors, without any government direction or assistance). A company that can do that deserves to be offered the chance to buy up the existing infrastructure that was previously built and maintained by the government, after they've proven they're capable of using it successfully. Hopefully there will come a time that a company like Virgin can do the same for an unused manned pad.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by ngchunter]