It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA fund cutting reasons

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:33 PM
Does anyone have any ideas or "facts" as to why NASA seems to be ever so slowly or quickly depending on how you see it, having their funds cut to the extent that in this generation or the next NASA will just be a part of history and not the primary global space exploration 'company' as i cant think of the proper word, that "put the first man on the moon"?

It seems all you seem to be hearing is how they are always struggling for funding for any projects they try to do, so everything is done on a very stretched shoestring budget.

Surely there should be more funding available as the damage done in the war in Iraq is being payed for by the people that did the damage which comes to quite a tidy sum im sure, so there must be funding that could be used?

Anyone got any ideas as to why this is the case?


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:25 PM
Space exploration has sadly lost a considerable amount of interest over the past decade or two.

Back when the U.S. sent men to the moon, it was a race not only against the Soviets but also to meet JFK's famous deadline. So, because of the political power gained by going to the moon and the considerable amount of public interest in it, NASA was given a much larger budget.

Once Apollo was over, years passed until the shuttle program was eventually ready. The thing about the shuttle is that, although it's an incredible vehicle, it can only put us in Earth's orbit. Obviously, by the first shuttle mission in 1981, Earth orbit was already familiar with the public.

Other than such major events as the Challenger and Columbia disasters, John Glenn's return to space, and the Hubble Telescope, public interest in NASA as a whole has gone down considerably. Also, NASA holds only a fraction of the political power it once did.

The less people care and the less political power it holds, the less of a budget it's going to get.

I doubt NASA is going anywhere, but it just isn't the limitless agency it once was that everyone cheered on.

It's sad, really, as everytime we put people into space it's something to behold. But that's just how public interest is.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:30 PM
Because members of the House of Representatives (the ones who ultimately vote on what programs get tax dollars) find it hard to sell "space exploration" to the voters and taxpayers in lieu of social programs.

If there is extra money to be spent because the war in Iraq is winding down, then most voters/taxpayers would rather see that money go towards projects that take place here on Earth -- or possibly an income tax cut.

Right now, billions of tax dollars are being spent in the United States in trying to stimulate the economy, therefore there is less money that is available to go towards any potential NASA budget increase.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:14 PM
It is sad as you say that is the case the public has virtually no interest and it certainly seems to be the case.

The public has a big say in what goes on in terms of how some of the money that is controlled by congress is spent, really if the public so wished they could have money spent on whatever they wanted within reason of course.

Also if there was a big enough push the public could have any info they wanted eg; top secret files and classified information on goverment knowledge thats being surpressed concerning the universe and any veiwing or contact with ET's obviously that was off on a real tangent but what i mean is if we wanted these things collectively then we would be told but until that happens, which wont be in my generation then there will always be conspiracys and disbelief in the in the goverment at least from the minority anyway?

NASA should get money the same way the "black projects" get money as we do not know about that spending now do we?

Maybe the military have actual craft which make the shuttle and saturn rockets look like medieval instruments and thats another reason why the funding is being cut, but thats just an idea based on very little evidence.


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:04 PM
Who cares about exploring space when we have Dancing with the stars right here on Earth!

All new Episodes of Beverly Hills 90210 are going to be coming out soon!

American Idol, The Hills, One Tree Hill, Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga ALL NEW STUFF coming out from them people!

Get your eye out of that stupid telescoop and glue them to the set!

We've got Jerry Springer AND Flavor Flave Flavor of Love!

Why do you CARE about what is going on up in space? It is dark, cold and it probably smells like poor people.

I work in my office all day and then I can come home and WATCH THE OFFICE on T.V.!

I live a life but WHY BOTHER! There are lives being lived right now in 30 ROCK AND WE ARE MISSING IT!

Stop spending money on those missile things with the flames shooting out of them. All I care about is the television signal that bounces from the satelli.....wait a second...we need to spend money on space exploration I can watch Heroes!

Oh my gawd. Put more money in the budget! Put more money in NASA's budget naow!

I have to know what my precious Claire Bear is doing and if Sylar is wrestling for the good guys or bad guys this week!

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:13 PM
Personally, weve already been thier and done that. Thiers nothinig more to really see..someting exciting and new, like the pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts or Voyagers 1 and 2! The apollo missions. Weve totally mapped every knwon planet exccept for pluto. Its the same thing over and over and over again...were sending a spacecraft to take pictures everyone and do some minor intrument testing. Its pretty much been beaten to death as a topic. Hell even Cassini at saturn, didnt turn up anyting the public wanted to really see.
Sending man back to the moon, could be a start. sending spacecraft back to the surface of venus with an actual HI definition camera that can survive the heat and pressure thier, would rock!
Nasa is jsut sending downgraded spacecrafts, msotly to mars it seems, to study the weather, magnetoshpere, take pictures blah blah blah been thier done. It does seem like thier looking for someting they suspect, aka life..but as for public interests...its over.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:18 PM
What IDE like to a spacecraft like Galileo, but instead fo jupiter....going to Uranus and Neptune. They both were fascinating worlds, with VERY mysterious moons! The geysers on Trtion, the weird shapes on Miranda..along with the highest cliffs ever photographed in the solar system! A spacecraft, that would orbit for 4 or more years and take breathaking pcitures and studys and measuremnts of these icy wonderworlds! That what ide want!

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

As much as I agree with you on how rediculous those shows are, and the sad fact that those are the shows that people watch these days, that isn't a fair post to put.

I could rant on for days about how pathetic i feel the television shows have become, but on a personal basis... I do watch television, I'm a big National Geographic, Science, History, and DIY channel fan.

HOWEVER, taking the MTV shows off the air will actually do nothing for NASA. the money isn't related together at all.

I will say, though, that I feel as though more people should be interested in space exploration. This spring I went to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum in DC. Walking around with my father and girlfriend, neither of them seemed entirely too interested on what was going on (we originally went down for the nat. hist. museum) but I was running around burting out facts and checking everything out. My main mission was to find a Hubble replica. I didn't know if they had one or not, but figured they haaaad to. And they did, and my heart sank when I saw it. But before finding that, I stumbled upon a replica Cassini/Huygens... my favorite craft behind Hubble... and i wasnt expecting to see that there at all... I about cried with joy.

Anyway, i've typed to much and strayed away from my point, which was: the post you made is invalid because none of that money is related at all to NASA.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:21 AM
Unfortunately, NASA is funded, or not funded, every four years by the US government, who changes their minds every 4 years or so. There is no way for NASA to keep a consistent space program going under these conditions.

I look to the private sector to fund the future of space exploration. This is in the early stages right now, but appears to be doing well as far as I can tell. Lots of momentum with private sector companies launching sats, etc. Not too far fetched to see moon shots or deep space expeditions from these same companies.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:09 AM
join the civilian and the militair space programs together so the technology from area 51 and other bases can be used in space exploration. department of defence is always well funded it got allmost 1 trilion dollars in funds for all departments so .. use DARPA to create a FTL drive or a propulsion system for rapid space travel.
Or use the VASMIR which can travel to mars within 39 days if powered by a nuclear power plant of 200 mw

top topics


log in