NASA's budget: Help save space exploration!

[Vulpes]

Recently, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson called for NASA's budget to be increased to one penny for every federal tax dollar—in other words, to 1% of the federal budget, about double what it receives now. Currently, NASA receives about 18 billion dollars a year. In comparison, the US Air Force alone receives about 170 billion a year.

I shouldn't have to tell you why this is so important—it might not be hyperbole to say that space travel is essential to mankind's survival. And while private companies are starting to explore space, NASA remains the foremost space exploration agency in the world.

A movement called Penny4Nasa has started to end its funding problem. You can see a video about why NASA is so important here.

I'd like to encourage you all to sign this petition (you'll have to register, but this is a cause that merits it) and visit this site for more information.

 

[Squiggy]

Oooh. An online petition? That'll get congress to take notice!

 

[ares93]

Jesus! They wouldn't notice if you forced in down their throats. Good cause, but waste of time. Nothing is going to change.

 

[bigdaddy]

Oooh. An online petition? That'll get congress to take notice!

It worked for preventing stupid internet bills from passing Congress.

 

[Knight Templar]

Can't hurt. Might help.

 

[SmoothieX]

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

 

[Random_Spock]

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

Seconded. There's a lot more going on right now that needs attention. Nasa will have to wait on this one.

 

[Knight Templar]

Can't hurt. Might help.

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

Seconded. There's a lot more going on right now that needs attention. Nasa will have to wait on this one.

We had far, far greater "earthly problems" in the 1960s and we sent men to the moon.

 

[Kemaiku]

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

Yup.

 

[sojourner]

If earthly problems are more of an issue, then we should be worrying about the $170billion spent on defense, not the %1 wanted for NASA. Besides, the money spent on NASA goes to new technology, which has benefits right here on earth.

 

[Vulpes]

If earthly problems are more of an issue, then we should be worrying about the $170billion spent on defense, not the %1 wanted for NASA. Besides, the money spent on NASA goes to new technology, which has benefits right here on earth.

As a matter of fact, that's just the Air Force. The military in general gets almost 700 billion.

Increasing NASA's budget to 1% will have no appreciable impact on how well we can respond to "Earthly problems". In addition, space exploration provides or is important to a solution—in some cases perhaps the only solution—to a number of those problems, including overpopulation, energy production, and waste disposal.

However, even without that, NASA should get more money. Because NASA is a symbol of science and technology. When NASA landed on the moon, who wasn't awed? And, to use a cliché, how many watching children decided they wanted to become scientists?

 

[Squiggy]

Can't hurt.

Yes.

Might help.

No. Congress couldn't legislate itself out of a wet paper bag. NASA already has one of if not THE highest approval ratings of any government agency. Congress doesn't care.

It doesn't help that people think NASA's budget is several times what it actually is. First educate the people on Federal budget allocations and then tell them NASA should get more.

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

Seconded. There's a lot more going on right now that needs attention. Nasa will have to wait on this one.

We had far, far greater "earthly problems" in the 1960s and we sent men to the moon.[/QUOTE]
We sent men to the moon for more political reason than scientific reasons. It's no coincidence we stopped going after we "won".

 

[Knight Templar]

Can't hurt.

Yes.

Might help.

No. Congress couldn't legislate itself out of a wet paper bag. NASA already has one of if not THE highest approval ratings of any government agency. Congress doesn't care.

It doesn't help that people think NASA's budget is several times what it actually is. First educate the people on Federal budget allocations and then tell them NASA should get more.

Uhhh, maybe we should worry a little more about the earthly problems in this country right now.

Seconded. There's a lot more going on right now that needs attention. Nasa will have to wait on this one.

We had far, far greater "earthly problems" in the 1960s and we sent men to the moon.

We sent men to the moon for more political reason than scientific reasons. It's no coincidence we stopped going after we "won".[/QUOTE]

So. Send manned missions to Mars for political reasons as well. Why does it matter why we go as long as we go?

 

[Saga]

if we don't get to Mars the terrorists win!

 

[Squiggy]

Politically there's no reason to send people to Mars as Congress can't see past the next election, much less past the next 5-10 Congressional elections it would take to get a human on Mars.

If and when China starts seriously gearing up to leave Earth, then you'll see the US make a concerted effort to leave LEO again, but not until then.

 

[Knight Templar]

Politically there's no reason to send people to Mars as Congress can't see past the next election, much less past the next 5-10 Congressional elections it would take to get a human on Mars.

.

Won't take that long. According to Dr. Robert Zubrin, we can get to Mars within 10 years.

That means launching the ERV within 8 years of the mission go ahead.

 

[sojourner]

Zubrin? Is he still relevant?

 

[Knight Templar]

Zubrin? Is he still relevant?

Considering that NASA adopted almost every major element of his Mars Direct plan for their own mission planning I would say so.

 

[sojourner]

Which parts are those considering we currently don't have a plan for mars?

 

[Robert D. Robot]

....If and when China starts seriously gearing up to leave Earth, then you'll see the US make a concerted effort to leave LEO again, but not until then.

Sadly, I agree. It seems that the best way to motivate a good chunk of the electorate in the U.S. to push for something is to get them fearful (even irrational fear) of someone or something.