Obama is going to add 2 billion to NASA's funds

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Humans need to explore space in order to develop technologies to ensure human existence beyond this planet's usefulness.

And you're fooling yourself, there wouldn't be any less hot air in P&N, it would belched in a different direction ;)

Technologically, we're not even close to having the required technologies to make any difference at all in ensuring human existence by colonizing elsewhere. At present time, there's simply no additional payoff to sending humans vs. robots to explore. We're decades upon decades away from the technologies needed to successfully inhabit other worlds. Lets look at one technology that will be incredibly important: energy. Right now, we're pretty much stuck with solar energy & perhaps some nuclear energy. Why not put the money (which isn't a limitless resource) into something like fusion research. Fusion power could/would change what would be a survival type of situation on the moon into a situation where humans could thrive in that environment.

It takes a LOT of energy to build up a base. We can squander even more of our resources here, taking us ever so slightly closer to our planet's uselessness, else we could try to develop better technologies in the present which would make the steps of settling on the Moon, Mars, much easier. How much more energy does it take to get a human into orbit on, say, the Space Shuttle than it would take with something like a space elevator (if/when the technology matures enough?)

If you were willing to irradiate part of nevada, I could build you a spaceship the size of a small city that could fly to mars in a weekend. The thing could reasonably be used as an interstellar colony ship if we had the cajones that they did in the 1500s. If we wanted to build a self sustaining base on the moon, once we got it bootstrapped, the only thing we'd really need to ship in is bulk carbon. The only reason human exploration has been expensive is because we've been taking half measures and cutting corners.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm all for it.
But what I would really like to see explored more is the oceans. We know so little about what 'lies beneath' and it is much closer than the moon or mars.

Yeah, and we can pillage the ocean for its resource much more easily than other planets. :thumbsup:

exactly !
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
$2 billion to NASA is equivilent to giving Bill Gates a 6 pack of Busch Light and a $10 hooker with no teeth.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: JS80
Great hire more scientists to stare at the sky and do nothing.

Yes, b/c no inventions that you use on a daily basis came from the space program.

I'm 100% for unmanned space exploration & science spending in general. However, a lot of the claims for inventions derived from the space program are, perhaps, a bit of an exaggeration & a believe that all research related to the space program happened in a vacuum. Example: for the Apollo missions, they needed a drill to get samples from well below the surface, and of course, it had to be battery operated (else, a realllllllllly long extension cord back to the earth). So, the exaggeration is that today's cordless tools owe their existence to the space program. Nonsense.

Another claim is in using radiant foil insulation to keep homes from heating up via the sun's radiation. Certainly the technology was used in the space program, and may even have been used first in the space program. Nonetheless, it's a stretch to attribute such a simple concept to the inventiveness of the space program.

Another claim: water filtration. Yep, they needed to filter water on the Apollo missions. In that same era, water supplies for the vast majority of the American public were relatively safe and uncontaminated (or at least, the contamination wasn't made into a big issue.) The necessity of contaminant filtration during the Apollo missions led to its invention. Nonetheless, necessity is often the mother to invention. If there had never been a space program, it's rather naive to believe that it wouldn't have been invented, and rather quickly, when the need arose.

There are many cases where "applied technology developed by NASA" simply means "the obvious solution to the problem, which was also used by NASA 20 years ago, since they were the first people who needed a solution to the problem." The software used for tracking humpback whale tails was an adaptation of software already made for NASA (for studying heat shield tiles.) Seriously, someone would be rather foolish to believe that a solution couldn't have been developed from scratch - and rather quickly. It's just sometimes easier not to reinvent the wheel.

I'm not saying that there aren't NASA technologies which really wouldn't have gotten off the ground (pun intended) if it weren't for NASA. For example, relaying television signals via satellite.

But more importantly, exploration is the point of NASA. We don't fund NASA for the odd chance that we may invent the non-stick frying pan.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Obama is going to spend even more money, yay!
:disgust:
More money than what?
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
So-called space programmes are absurd -especially in regard to monkeyed/manned missions. Oh yes, monkeys beat hu-mans into space. So did dogs, rats, and flies. These things must be said.

In any case NASA was the culmination of territorial pissings at best and surreptitious extension of military expenditure/research under the guise of civilian, at worst -in which case it would actually still be about territorial pissings, innit?

Admittedly, I are teh self-described Theo K. of ATOT as I do not get moist over tech for its own sake and indeed do not necessarily cotton to it having a net benefit in general. It is certainly a distraction though. The bottom line is that the main problem facing humanity (not to be confuzzled with a Le Cirque show) is shitting ourselves to death (ye olde dysentery). Second is prolly malaria. Really, I am just pulling this outta my arse but 'tis prolly true nonetheless if one cares to look it up.

Meanwhile, what does funding NASA and such as actually accomplish and why are we in such a hurry? Seriousry. Curiosity kilt the moggy. And moreover, we are still fascinated by shiny rocks. Let us not fool ourselves that we are anything but barely self-aware shit-arsed ignorant apes. Hu-mans: almost Bonobo but still evolving.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: Auric
So-called space programmes are absurd -especially in regard to monkeyed/manned missions. Oh yes, monkeys beat hu-mans into space. So did dogs, rats, and flies. These things must be said.

In any case NASA was the culmination of territorial pissings at best and surreptitious extension of military expenditure/research under the guise of civilian, at worst -in which case it would actually still be about territorial pissings, innit?

Admittedly, I are teh self-described Theo K. of ATOT as I do not get moist over tech for its own sake and indeed do not necessarily cotton to it having a net benefit in general. It is certainly a distraction though. The bottom line is that the main problem facing humanity (not to be confuzzled with a Le Cirque show) is shitting ourselves to death (ye olde dysentery). Second is prolly malaria. Really, I am just pulling this outta my arse but 'tis prolly true nonetheless if one cares to look it up.

Meanwhile, what does funding NASA and such as actually accomplish and why are we in such a hurry? Seriousry. Curiosity kilt the moggy. And moreover, we are still fascinated by shiny rocks. Let us not fool ourselves that we are anything but barely self-aware shit-arsed ignorant apes. Hu-mans: almost Bonobo but still evolving.

Woah, you seriously need to lay off the drugs, man.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
How about spend less money on space while we have debt up to our eye balls. Honestly, those pretty pictures of far galaxies is nice, but I think we have better things to spend money on. We have an infrastructure in need of repair. We still don't have an energy plan. We still have Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to fix. A broken education system. Honestly we have plenty of other things to do than try to expand our space program. Besides, why doesn't NASA team up with other nations more? It's because they're mostly run by the same companies who get most of NASA's funds to build stuff. Maybe if NASA was better run, we wouldn't have to hear them whine about funding too.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: mcmilljb
How about spend less money on space while we have debt up to our eye balls. Honestly, those pretty pictures of far galaxies is nice, but I think we have better things to spend money on. We have an infrastructure in need of repair. We still don't have an energy plan. We still have Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to fix. A broken education system. Honestly we have plenty of other things to do than try to expand our space program. Besides, why doesn't NASA team up with other nations more? It's because they're mostly run by the same companies who get most of NASA's funds to build stuff. Maybe if NASA was better run, we wouldn't have to hear them whine about funding too.

Idiotic. Do you know how tiny the NASA budget actually is? Cutting military spending by 2% would have a much bigger impact on the budget and we wouldn't lose all the capabilities that NASA gives us.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1
According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA?s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson?s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA?s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA?s budget.

The naysayers often speak as if the country?s social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference?

Note also that we are only talking about federal spending here. Not included in these estimates are the vast amounts of money that state and local governments spend on social programs. Needless to say, state and local government funding of space exploration is negligible.

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA?s funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the United States defense budget.

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA?s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: mcmilljb
How about spend less money on space while we have debt up to our eye balls. Honestly, those pretty pictures of far galaxies is nice, but I think we have better things to spend money on. We have an infrastructure in need of repair. We still don't have an energy plan. We still have Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to fix. A broken education system. Honestly we have plenty of other things to do than try to expand our space program. Besides, why doesn't NASA team up with other nations more? It's because they're mostly run by the same companies who get most of NASA's funds to build stuff. Maybe if NASA was better run, we wouldn't have to hear them whine about funding too.

Idiotic. Do you know how tiny the NASA budget actually is? Cutting military spending by 2% would have a much bigger impact on the budget and we wouldn't lose all the capabilities that NASA gives us.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1
According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA?s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson?s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA?s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA?s budget.

The naysayers often speak as if the country?s social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference?

Note also that we are only talking about federal spending here. Not included in these estimates are the vast amounts of money that state and local governments spend on social programs. Needless to say, state and local government funding of space exploration is negligible.

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA?s funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the United States defense budget.

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA?s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

It's not idiotic when someone wants cuts across the board. Spending money for the sake of spending money is not worth it. Have the shuttles cut costs to send anything to space? No. Has the International Space Station been finished yet? No. Is it already obsolete? Yes. I can go on about how much they have wasted, but it's pointless to someone who just loves space exploration. My point is about spending less money when you're running the red. You damn well better believe I don't want those morons at the pentagon wasting more money on their pet projects too. I also bolded 2 program where I think some money should be spent.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
A former NASA guy built me a device that makes my old King Crimson records SING so I say heck yes! :D
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
With the way Obama wants to throw around money he's going to tax me into the poor house. I'm all for more exploration and better healthcare but people should be able to hold on to the money they earn too.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I want to know who we're borrowing the money from before committing. I didn't vote in the poll.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: boomerang
I want to know who we're borrowing the money from before committing. I didn't vote in the poll.
We're not borrowing it from anyone, silly goose.

We just run the printing presses at the treasury for an extra hour.

Then write a few IOUs, and call it a day.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,932
1,113
126
It depends. Is he:

Transitioning money from Iraq? Good
Transitioning money from foreign aid? Good
Transitioning money from Ethanol? Good
Transitioning money from Welfare? Maybe
Raising taxes? Bad

I say we stay trim on NASA's budget until we have gotten off of petroleum/gas/ethanol and on to a pure electrical system. This will be the next president's moon landing.

 

AFSCrazy

Member
Nov 28, 2005
121
0
0
For space exploration, no.
For the furthering of technologies which could improve life on earth, yes. But only after other financial strains are resolved an the economy can handle superfluous spending.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
He's promising so much money to so many people I'm not surprised at all.

And just where do you think this money will come from? That's right, you mr. richie riche - you over there making over 60K a year richie rich. It's going to come from you.

O RLY?