or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Someone Wanna Tell Me Why Nasa? Spends 800 million on mars
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Someone Wanna Tell Me Why Nasa? Spends 800 million on mars - Page 2

post #21 of 27
NASA is more military R&D funding in sheep's clothes.

While we still have homelessness, hunger, lack of decent medical care, and a host of other social woes for many in our countr, NASA spending is immoral.
post #22 of 27
FWIW, I had a friend who, until she retired, was an editor at one of the big defense firms. She was a tried-and-true Republican, and had class 5 security clearance at her job. She was also a really cool person.

In any event, she believed space boondogles (her comments were directed specifically at Reagan's Star Wars program, which she was in a position to know quite a lot about) are intended as much to instill a sense of national pride ("gee, look what we can do!") as anything else. She believed that, other than any scientific or other alleged value they might have, they were largely one form of a hugely expensive PR campaign. She frankly did not approve of them, though she thought they did serve well in their PR role.
post #23 of 27
I'm in the camp that finds this obscene. We've had many, many people in our town suddenly unemployeed and our public school system is hurting BADLY. Much more useful ways to be spending this money.
We can also find alternative fuel sources here, can't we? Why aren't we looking into wind, solar, etc. power and finding ways to make that work for us?

Marcy
post #24 of 27
ITA agree that there are more impt thing than Mars exploration, but...

Just because Mars was scrapped would NOT mean that that $800 million went to the needy. I can guarantee it wouldn't

I'm sorry, but this argument seems to me like when people say, "Well I didn't bfeed, but it is more important to read to your child/love them/etc..." I'm not arguing with the impt of the second, just saying we *could* have both! What, the current war has already spent 100 (or is it 1000) times that much money!!! There are soooo many resources available, it is just alloting them correctly, and with all the govt waste that goes on (and corporate welfare) it seems odd to attack a 800 million program that at least is not actively killing people. There are so many other things that need changed. I am totally positive that with a readjustment of values ALL people could have food, housing, medical care, education *and* the NASA program.

Kay
post #25 of 27
"I am totally positive that with a readjustment of values ALL people could have food, housing, medical care, education *and* the NASA program."

Kay...ITA...Joyce in the mts.
post #26 of 27
I haven't posted here very much, but space exploration is a topic I feel strongly about, so I thought I'd jump in.

First, I have to say that I have a number of significant disagreements with the way NASA spends its money and what priorities it chooses. I think manned space flight is highly overrated, or at least the sort of manned missions that NASA focuses on. This has been true ever since the Apollo missions, when the purpose was not to establish any sort of foothold in space, but simply to beat the Russians to the moon. Similarly, the Space Shuttle program has been an expensive boondoggle that has produced very little of any permanent value. The original vision was for a cheap, safe, reusable vessel that could take off weekly or daily, shuttling people and equipment up to orbit. Instead, we get a hugely expensive and apparently quite dangerous vehicle that has retarded the development of genuinely useful spaceplanes.

That said, I think NASA also does a lot of good. Planetary exploration missions like Mariner and Voyager and Galileo have produced a lot of excellent scientific data for a relatively low cost. The Hubble telescope has done as much for cosmology in ten years as was done in decades before its launch. The International Space Station may be hugely expensive, relatively useless, and decades behind schedule, but at least it represents some attempt at a human presence in space.

I also don't understand the attitude that we should not fund pure research when there are practical problems to be solved. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and pure research often leads to completely unexpected ways of solving problems. The view that only the practical is important is, of course, a long-standing American view with a proud history, but I think anti-intellectualism is an ultimately unproductive way of thinking. Also, while it is obviously important to address immediate needs and problems, it also seems wise to me to invest in the future.

Also, the total NASA budget for 2003 is $15 billion dollars. A lot of money to you and me (though not to Bill Gates) but only about 2% of the total discretionary spending of $755 billion, and about .7% of the total outlays of $2.1 TRILLION. I am all for reallocating our spending priorities, but NASA is far from the first place I would look for such things. Consider that we spend more than ten times the NASA budget just on interest on the national debt. But since Mars is far away and pure research rarely yields immediate practical results, it's an easy, though in my opinion unjustified target for outrage.
post #27 of 27
In answer to the opening post, ...because it is there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Someone Wanna Tell Me Why Nasa? Spends 800 million on mars