Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of these are bandaids on a gunshot wound, neosporin on AIDS. It sounds great, and helps interm problems.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime."
My point is we must not stop pursuing things that are currently out of reach. If you can go through the government spending, and not find wasteful spending that could fund all the things you just mentioned, then it may be time for the space program to go (for instance, I don't think N Korea is in a financial position to have a space program). We could fund all the things you said just by cutting back on aid we give to other countries.
Take all science innovation money, send it inward and give everyone free stuff for one generation and you will ruin our civilization. We need reason to work, take it away by providing everything, all innovation, ambition, and incentives die in one generation. It'd be worse than nuclear war.
I am with you on pursuing things out of reach. But in better times. We should not be sending a billion dollars to the moon when this country is in the deepest depression and probably worse then 1928.
I want to explore Europe. But times are tough so I will hold off on my trip. But the govt does not work that way does it.
And yes indeed you are right that we could also fund all those things if this govt would stop giving away all our money to 6th world idiots who hate our guts with every cell in their greazy bodies.
NASA is this countries biggest boondoggle. The biggest bureaucratic disaster since Bush was appointed Dictator. I dont have a problem going up there 40 years ago. But since then we learned that there is nothing up there. No resources at all, no water, no energy, no life of any kind. Nothing but rocks and dirt.
The money spent on this bureaucratic disaster each year would be enough to give every man woman and child free health care. 100% free with no co-pays. Some years it would have also payed for a college education for anyone wishing to further their educatio....no cost to the student. That money could eliminate hunger in America, cloth and house the poor, help the sick and elderly. Rebuild our economy.
Can anyone tell me the benefit of bringing an orange or a pear to the moon and just lay it down to watch how it decomposes? How does this help anyone or anything? Just how many more moon rocks do Scientists need to study?
Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron, rare on Earth, sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system's gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula), though still low in quantity (28 ppm of lunar regolith is helium-4 and 0.01 ppm is helium-3).[1] It is proposed to be used as a second-generation fusion power source.
The helion, the nucleus of a helium-3 atom, consists of two protons but only one neutron, in contrast to two neutrons in ordinary helium. Its existence was first proposed in 1934 by the Australian nuclear physicist Mark Oliphant while based at Cambridge University's Cavendish Laboratory, in an experiment in which fast deuterons were reacted with other deuteron targets (the first demonstration of nuclear fusion). Helium-3, as an isotope, was postulated to be radioactive, until helions from it were accidentally identified as a trace "contaminant" in a sample of natural helium (which is mostly helium-4) from a gas well, by Luis W. Alvarez and Robert Cornog in a cyclotron experiment at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in 1939. [2]
If your argument was "should we putting people up in X"? X being the moon, mars, space at all, etc... I would see your argument.
But NASA is much more than that. NASA is a part of our general research and technology capabilities. NASA is involved in defense, environment, public health, ecology, weather, disaster management (natural and man made), human rights and governance, resource management, etc...
Cut NASA and you are cutting more than just manned space exploration.
I don't have an extra $150 laying around at the moment.
However, since one of the arguments is finding a new homeworld for humanity, one must consider the caliber of the people who would be ALLOWED to go. Are you going to empty the prisons as well, and ship them to another planet too? The criminal element--the ones who have been caught anywy--are proscribed. The poor will likely be proscribed. Those with power, money, and influence will go.
I don't have an extra $150 laying around at the moment.
However, since one of the arguments is finding a new homeworld for humanity, one must consider the caliber of the people who would be ALLOWED to go. Are you going to empty the prisons as well, and ship them to another planet too? The criminal element--the ones who have been caught anywy--are proscribed. The poor will likely be proscribed. Those with power, money, and influence will go.
Its not feasible to send EVERY person to another planet for survival in the event of a global disaster. The main reason for colonizing another planet, other than financial gains, is the survival of the species. Notice I said species, not every human in the species.
I don't have an extra $150 laying around at the moment.
However, since one of the arguments is finding a new homeworld for humanity, one must consider the caliber of the people who would be ALLOWED to go. Are you going to empty the prisons as well, and ship them to another planet too? The criminal element--the ones who have been caught anywy--are proscribed. The poor will likely be proscribed. Those with power, money, and influence will go.
Sending the prisoners to Australia resulted in a culture that is at least the equal of our own. We send prisoners into space to develop cultures that are superior to our own, and then the rich will want to go there. Good riddance to both of them.
I don't have an extra $150 laying around at the moment.
However, since one of the arguments is finding a new homeworld for humanity, one must consider the caliber of the people who would be ALLOWED to go. Are you going to empty the prisons as well, and ship them to another planet too? The criminal element--the ones who have been caught anywy--are proscribed. The poor will likely be proscribed. Those with power, money, and influence will go.
How about sending the "undesirables" out to settle new worlds... it worked with Australia...
I'm sorry, this is relevant to NASA funding how?
The point is: NASA leads to many benefits, beyond manned space travel. It seems the focus here is on manned space travel, not NASA funding as a whole.
I'm sorry, this is relevant to NASA funding how?
The point is: NASA leads to many benefits, beyond manned space travel. It seems the focus here is on manned space travel, not NASA funding as a whole.
I think it is relevant, because without NASA, we can't send our huddled masses from our wretched shores out into outer space and turn them loose on an asteroid.
If we abolished NASA, it would ONLY effect the space program Whatever else they do could easily be absorbed into various other agencies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
