Why doesn’t the government invest more money into NASA?
Posted by admin on Feb 21, 2010
We’re talking about food shortages, job shortages, and energy shortages. We’re talking about a problem with the national deficiate. My question is why doesn’t the government invest more into the innovations juggernaut we call NASA?
How many jobs were created when the computer was made more practical? Countless. Without NASA, the computer would just be this huge room sized thing that could only do basic math. What about the invention of plastics? I mean no organization in the world has made more patinents then NASA. It’s also where we’ll probably develop alternate fuel sources, plus we could mine the resources on the moon, preserving our own enviroment. There’s nothing living to destroy up there.
On a financial level, for every dollar we put into NASA we get about 4 back. We’re always talking about having to export more. But since technology is I believe our lead export, shouldn’t we do things that could potentially up the amount of technology we export?
Okay, so I know this won’t solve every single problem in the world. The high cost of health care, world hunger, and political tyrants will still run amuck. And it will take time for us to see results of our investment. But seriously, it will solve quite a few of them I think.
So what I’m trying to figure is why don’t we? What’s the counter arguement against investing more into NASA?
Well, the way I see it, even if NASA just puts out contracts to private companies to invent, it still gives private companies an incentive to invent, develop and improve.
And I hate that whole, "Yeah I like Tang too, but seriously I don’t think it’s worth our money." Well I bet you like your cell phone too. How about that computer you’re writing your crap on?
A lot of people are talking about fixing unemployment first, so I’ll repeat myself. How many jobs were created with the advancement of the computer? How many jobs were created with the satellite systems?
Yeah, I’m talking about fixing unemployment just as you are. Only difference is my idea to fix those problems makes more sense, because for one I actually have one. The only thing is it will take a lot of time. But I think looking the long run isn’t a bad thing.
I think we should invest more money in scientific research across the board. The reason we don’t fund research more than we do now is because most voters are scientifically illiterate. They can’t see the value in investing in NASA.
The counterargument against funding NASA would be 1) NASA specializes in aerospace engineering so it can’t help across the board, 2) Private enterprises can innovate better than gov’t agencies, so reduce gov’t spending and let private industry do the investing.
Paste your code here!
Last two things NASA did for us?
1–We bombed the moon
2–NASA scientist caught in GW fraud
References :
there are more important things to invest? health…education….durrrr
References :
Nasa already has enough money.
References :
Because they have no intension of doing it. If they did, the dollar will go up and they cant have there world currency and a world government.
References :
You’re right. If they are already spending like drunken sailors, why hold anything back?
References :
Actually at this point in time NASA seems like a waste of money. It’s like a hobby on a really large scale. You don’t indulge in your hobby before your bills are paid….
As of right now, our bills are definitely not paid.
References :
Why don’t private corporations invest their own money into ventures which earn them profits instead of being fascists and pilfering the public treasury, namely taxpayers, so those corporations can earn big profits.
References :
See telecommunications industry if you’re drawing a blank
NASA had very little to do with innovation in information technology. NASA scientists were happy with their slide rules at first and did nothing to make them obsolete. All we have gotten out of NASA has been Velcro and Tang.
References :
NASA is a government agency. That’s reason enough not to trust it with money.
Personal computers were truly developed and perfected by people in the private sector.
The moon is not a resource-rich place. Not even for cheese.
Plastic consumes oil and takes forever to biodegrade.
Thanks, NASA.
References :
$17.8 Billion, with a B.
How much more do we need to throw into space?
I like Tang as much as the next guy, but please….
References :
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08034_FY2009_budget.html
China wants at least some of the money you owe them back!
References :
To put it bluntly, the American masses dont think in the long term. They will complain to local politicians, to vote against it, and of course the politician will to get re-elected. If it doesnt help us now why should we do it. Nasa is a great source of innovation and we should put alot of money into their projects. Theres alot to be done in America, and im not talking short term solutions (social security, health care, and others that have and will flop),
References :
Because all of these "shortages" have been artificially created by the government. There is plenty of energy and room to grow more food. The jobs issue would be temporary if the government doesn’t interfere too much. I am not opposed to NASA funding but I don’t favor it for phony reactionary reasons..
References :
Republican presidents consistently increase NASA funding. Democrats consistently cut NASA funding. Democrats don’t support real science. They practically killed nuclear power in this country. However, Democrats would be more than happy to spend millions on research into the prevalence of homosexuality among orangutans. Without NASA, we wouldn’t have communication satellites in orbit. We wouldn’t have GPS. However, thanks to Democrats, we now know how many gay orangutans frolic in the wild.
References :
I think we should invest more money in scientific research across the board. The reason we don’t fund research more than we do now is because most voters are scientifically illiterate. They can’t see the value in investing in NASA.
The counterargument against funding NASA would be 1) NASA specializes in aerospace engineering so it can’t help across the board, 2) Private enterprises can innovate better than gov’t agencies, so reduce gov’t spending and let private industry do the investing.
References :
I gave up on NASA after the hissy they threw when a paying tourist wanted to visit the Space Station.
References :
"Let Tito Fly! – Space Frontier Foundation Sees NASA’s Move to Block First ISS Guest Hypocritical and Short Sighted", March 21, 2001
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4175
I don’t see why we shouldn’t we used stimulus money to build a bridge under the road so little tutle wouldn’t get run over. Turtles make funny poping noise when run over!!!!!
References :
I would rather develop something useful like next generation aircraft, ships, tanks, mass transit, even alternative energy related. NASA takes credit for a lot of inventions that companies created while working for NASA. NASA itself did not make the discoveries. It just means that pushing the scientific envelope with a huge budget creates unintended discoveries.
References :
They decided to use the money to buy more votes from Americans like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpO2s1rgHbQ
Typical Obama Supporters
Obama is turning the USA into a ghetto like Chicago.
References :
We already invest a lot into NASA. Once we get this unemployment thing fixed then we can start to invest in NASA,
References :
The counter argument against investing more into NASA is that its character has changed dramatically.
The innovations you cite are old enough that most people have no idea where they came from. Back then, NASA did little except design mission parameters then wave money at PRIVATE COMPANIES to find ways to fulfill them.
Now, NASA does just about everything in-house which is why they quite literally CANNOT replicate what "they did" 4 decades ago.
References :
I read someplace that NASA had planned a manned mission to Mars by August, 1982, but that the Viet Nam war was way too costly. That mission would have been a drop in the fiscal bucket, when compared to military spending back then. When you compare the worthiness of a manned mission to Mars to that of slugging it out in Southeast Asia, I vote Mars, all the way. We lost Viet Nam; what a waste. We lost our earlier mission to Mars; what a waste. Now, we now have global financial woes and budget cuts. Yet again, Mars normally takes the back seat simply to fall out of the vehicle. What can we do to avoid strike three?
Premier Educator of Leaders in Natural Health
The Natural Health field is growing at a phenomenal rate throughout the world. And millions of Americans – aware of the detrimental effects of drug-based western medicine – are joining health oriented people around the globe in embracing an alternative natural approach. Encompassing the core building blocks of all living organisms, an holistic lifestyle promotes the building, repair, and maintenance of health.
Read More…