Do you think NASA should get more funding?

Question

I do...I would at least increase it to 50 billion...space is too important to neglect.

Answer 1

I think that there should be more groups than just NASA. Personally I would like to see the day when we could easily travel around our solar system. Instead of having to plan several years in advance to just go to the damn space station.

Answer 2

I'm not exactly objective on this point. I work on the Space Program.

However, yes, a reasonable level of funding would be beneficial. NASA, like many other government sponsored activities, has the latitude to pursue pure research; science for its own sake rather than driven by shareholders and profits. We've turned up some amazing stuff that way. (Unrelated project but relevant - does anybody think the LHC is actually going to make money?? Really?)

An important and often overlooked aspect of NASA is the "Aeronautical" part (that first 'A'). With our skies getting more and more crowded, and outdated FAA infrastructure strained beyond all reason, the smart folks here could be a real asset.

Answer 3

Absolutely. NASA develops technologies and materials for which private companies find commercial, industrial and even military applications. That in turn leads to profitable industries that employ people at home throughout the country. Just about everything NASA developed has led to things such as safer cars, cell phones, faster computers, better medical care and more energy efficient appliances. Often these innovations are completely unanticipated, but they would never happen without the research and development NASA and other government agencies carry out as well. Private corporations can't take the risks pursing lines of research NASA can, but they and ultimately everyday people do benefit.

Answer 4

I think so. I've watched too many pure science missions get scrapped or severely delayed by budget constraints. Our exploration of the Jovian system, for instance is far behind what it should be in my opinion. We have determined that there is liquid water under the surface of Europa, and proposed missions to study this fascinating world that could quite possibly host extraterrestrial life. Unfortunately, these missions keep getting scrapped, most recently JIMO, due to budget constraints.



Juno was scrapped not only due to this but because it was deemed 'too ambitious.' Wha? The frontier of space is one of our best venues for being ambitious. The technology that this mission would have pioneered could have very likely led to key advancements that would have facilitated our current holy grail of space: the manned expedition to Mars, to speak nothing of what more we could learn about the moon itself, and the liklihood that it harbors life.



I am all for a mission to burrow under the ice and check for life there. If there is life, this could be the most influential discovery of our history in how we view ourselves and the universe - and yet this goes un-pursued in favor of a mission to orbit the north pole to examine the magnetic field of Jupiter itself. While the science benefit of this could also be great, it's hard to get general public interest inspired by the most detailed map of the Jovian magnetosphere to date.



I also agree with Mercury in that the private sector should also be stepping up. There are the first rumblings of progress along these lines, and quite possibly with a successful venture in space tourism, there could be a new gold rush in space by the private sector.



I just don't feel that the private sector will pursue the science missions that government agencies such as NASA will, simply because pure science doesn't produce cash flow. Applied science does, but applied science relies often on the facts learned first through pure science - honing these new discoveries into everyday applications that both benefit mankind and the private sector's coffers.



I feel that our ultimate destiny is to reach the stars. If we do not try to achieve this goal, then we certainly never will. We must never lose sight of our chance to grow beyond what we are today.

Answer 5

Well, to do that would require drawing funding from the other, (hidden) space program, the one we are not supposed to know anything about.



The funding for this, that is raised by pricing a new toilet seat at costing $37,000 per seat, a new hammer costing in at $52,000 per hammer, and building and maintaining the Gov. fleet of black unmarked helicopters, clothing and paying a salery to all the MIBs, That also, does not exist, costs $500,254 a week.



That is what the real space program is hidden under, and at the none existent, never heard of, officially never existed and never will exist... there is nothing there but desert... no matter how clearly YOU can see it... *AREA 51*.



{ツ} \(•)¿(•)/

I Strive 2 B

Answer 6

no, the private sector should open up and have competitive rates.



private companies (regulated by the govt) ultimately run cheaper and work faster...... more mistakes might happen(unless regulations are put in place), but hey, people died on ships trying to explore the world. why should space be all that much different? or are we too scared and/or lazy?



the world isn't like it used to be....today people just expect everything to be nice easy and convenient.





here's a success

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G68_dmC4BYI

from Scaled Composites

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

Answer 7

NOOOOOO!! They always lie to the public to convince us to go along with their stupid ideas(like the shuttle!).

Answer 8

YES, YES, YES