Skateguy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 378
- Location
- Houston/Heights
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers,
Skateguy said:is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
There have already been Private ventures into space. and since they are in it for a profit, and get no free ride, as NASA does, they are cost efficient.No. Private capital in space, like its terrestrial cousin will only go where it can be reasonably assured of profit. That largely means research and exploration is not going to be funded. What's the profit in hitting the moon with a rocket? None. What's the scientific value? Immense, especially in proving that water in ice form is there and could potentially be used as a source for fuel and for habitation.
Moderator's Warning: |
There have already been Private ventures into space. and since they are in it for a profit, and get no free ride, as NASA does, they are cost efficient.
We have some water here too, I do believe, that we continue to poison at an ever increasing rate. Why would we do things any differently on the Moon or any where else? We don't need to expand our exploitation to other worlds. we are not yet ready. ---we still produce garbage. :2wave:Examples?
"Hitting the Moon with a rocket" determined the existence of water on the moon. Not quite as trivial and pointless as you want to make it sound.
We have some water here too, I do believe, that we continue to poison at an ever increasing rate.
Skateguy said:Why would we do things any differently on the Moon or any where else? We don't need to expand our exploitation to other worlds. we are not yet ready. ---we still produce garbage. :2wave:
Private Enterprise will hopefully teach NASA a thing or two about working on a budget, but its hardly a replacement. The basic research and scientific exploration needed won't come from venture capitalists.
Private Enterprise will hopefully teach NASA a thing or two about working on a budget, but its hardly a replacement. The basic research and scientific exploration needed won't come from venture capitalists.
There have already been Private ventures into space.
Why are people talking like NASA doesn't have a budget. It does and it is less than 1% of our federal budget. If anything NASA's budget as a percentage of the national budget has been decreasing for years. Dollar for dollar it is probably one of the most productive programs our government runs.
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
Why are people talking like NASA doesn't have a budget. It does and it is less than 1% of our federal budget. If anything NASA's budget as a percentage of the national budget has been decreasing for years. Dollar for dollar it is probably one of the most productive programs our government runs.
Sounds good to me.....True and did you know that the Air Force spends the same amount as NASA for its own space research program? Interesting really. So that amount would be 17.6 billion dollars a year. I can at least hope that the Air Force already has satelites that can hover and track an enemy without needing to orbit the planet. And then the Air Force probably has a decent spacecraft that can go into space and travel to the highly desirable target for the hit squads to kill.
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
yeah but there has been several technology that was created by the private market not for NASA that NASA uses. If you are trying to say why should we continue funding for NASA it should be for the good of all mankind(sorry women you really don't have a place in this world:3oopsWow...I'm sorry but that has got to be the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard.
You obviously have no idea of the kinds of technology that we now employ thanks to NASA.
Here..educate yourself...
10 Types of Technology We Got From NASA (mind you this is just 10 of them..there are way more.)
NASA Research Finds Way Into IT, Consumer Products
NASA Office of Technology Transfer
CNN - 10 more bits of technology that is around thanks to NASA
Just imagine. Without NASA around you probably wouldn't have near the nifty things that you do...or even get saved by some of that technology.
IMO NASA should get at least 10X's the amount of funding that it does. At least. As far as I'm concerned NASA is the best program that our government has EVER done. It's really the only one that has ever given more than it's taken. With maybe the exception of the military...which keeps our freedoms secure.
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.Completely irrelevant to the scientific knowledge gained from this mission.
Yeahhhh....
When NASA starts building lunar colonies you might have a point. But that isn't what they did. NASA is primarily a research organization, not the colonization arm of the US government. :roll:
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.
If it is then such a good idea to explore space, why aren't major Corporations stepping up to get a slice of the Pie??---the gubment always takes on jobs, that are money pits. They run NASA, like tha post office. We don't need to spend billions in space--to make Velcro.Yeah but the technological advancment of colonizing space is so much more and it encourages more than say people colonizing the Sahara which there are already people living in and we already know the methods of colonizing those type of lands. Colonizing space is so much more than just about settling in different areas because we "feel" crowded.
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?