Phoenix is probably no more

[Pavonis]

NASA announced earlier this year a budget for the next five years of $17.6 billion dollars.
Eastimated cost of repairing the bridges in the U.S. that need it, $140 billion.
That money could be used for birdges that are in very dire straits as of this monent, like ones in Texas, where they have nine birdges listed for "Imminent Collapse" and another 12 in "Critical", which is just under that. Yes, I am sure not all those are major bridges, but we're talking about cutting off routes emergency vehicles may take for life of fire situations, or clog up traffic on alternative routes. They were built for a reason.

On close inspection of the figures presented, gutting NASA of its budget would still leave a $122.4 billion shortfall for national bridge repairs.

At any rate, it's not an either/or type of question. No one is saying "We can either fix the bridges, or fund NASA." Targeting NASA as an immediate budget-saver is a really easy only because many people seem to be under the impression that dollar bills are burnt as rocket fuel.

On the other hand, we could just fire all the NASA engineers and they could go fix the bridges. Even NASA employees have to earn money somehow.

 

[MIB]

Considering that NASA represents about 0.5% of the federal budget at the best of times these days, targeting them of all people for budget cuts is pretty disingenuous, IMO. Especially, as others have pointed out, they've earned every penny they got and the return in new technology and practical know-how has been valued at about 300% of our investment.

Ending the senseless war in Iraq or cutting our much beloved corporate welfare policies would get new bridges paid for and then some a hell of alot quicker than ending NASA.

 

[Neroon]

Just for quick reference, here is a 2-page spread from the paper illustrating much of what NASA has going on at the moment. The thumbnail does hide a large graphic, but that's somewhat necessary to make sure you can Zoom in and read the text..

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Poor lander, trampled to death by flying Martian reindeer as they touched down...

 

[diankra]

As Pavonis pretty much points out, it's not a choice between space science and doing things that need doing on Earth: it's that we can do space science like Phoenix and (figure plucked from the air) 50% of what needs doing on Earth, or no space science at all and 55% of what needs doing on Earth. If you could create paradise on Earth by axing space I'd be in favour, but the difference down here would be so marginal compared with the loss of wonder we'd get from not having probes out there.
Of course, the probes could always been put back for a decade and you'll stil make the same discoveries eventually. But apply that logic and we'd still be waiting to know what the far side of the Moon looked like (or entirely reliant on Russian pictures of it), or to see what the Earth looked like as a small planet in the void space (which has had an impact on human feeling far beyond its cost).
I mean... the stock markets can (nominally) lose the entire NASA budget for the next five years in six hours of sell-sell-sell panic!

 

[tharpdevenport]

NASA announced earlier this year a budget for the next five years of $17.6 billion dollars.
Eastimated cost of repairing the bridges in the U.S. that need it, $140 billion.
That money could be used for birdges that are in very dire straits as of this monent, like ones in Texas, where they have nine birdges listed for "Imminent Collapse" and another 12 in "Critical", which is just under that. Yes, I am sure not all those are major bridges, but we're talking about cutting off routes emergency vehicles may take for life of fire situations, or clog up traffic on alternative routes. They were built for a reason.

On close inspection of the figures presented, gutting NASA of its budget would still leave a $122.4 billion shortfall for national bridge repairs.

At any rate, it's not an either/or type of question. No one is saying "We can either fix the bridges, or fund NASA." Targeting NASA as an immediate budget-saver is a really easy only because many people seem to be under the impression that dollar bills are burnt as rocket fuel.

On the other hand, we could just fire all the NASA engineers and they could go fix the bridges. Even NASA employees have to earn money somehow.

I would like to point out that short fall will be closed over a period of years. Not all bridges are in "imminent" or "critical".

And it's only fair to target something that wastes millions of dollars acheiving things that don't yield anything we couldn't eventually find out here. Now if it were faster than light traveling speeds, that would be something, as we'll need another planet to inhabit one day and it may take lot of travel and time to find one.

Cutting pork spending is also another route. I can't see a legitimate reason something important, like the subject I have been on about in this thread -- bridges -- can't be solved NOW. The money is there, it's jsut being wasted.

 

[Pavonis]

I would like to point out that short fall will be closed over a period of years. Not all bridges are in "imminent" or "critical".

I would like to point out, again, that gutting NASA's budget wouldn't make the bridge repairs proceed any faster.

And it's only fair to target something that wastes millions of dollars acheiving things that don't yield anything we couldn't eventually find out here. Now if it were faster than light traveling speeds, that would be something, as we'll need another planet to inhabit one day and it may take lot of travel and time to find one.

Are you saying NASA in general is a waste of money or that the Phoenix lander mission specifically is (was) a waste of money? In either case, it would seem that you hold scientific research in low regard. Is that an accurate statement?

Cutting pork spending is also another route. I can't see a legitimate reason something important, like the subject I have been on about in this thread -- bridges -- can't be solved NOW. The money is there, it's jsut being wasted.

Have you considered writing to your congressmen regarding this matter?

 

[tharpdevenport]

I can't recall ever hearing about writing a congressman on a serious issue actually acheiving anything. Make as well start a petition.

 

[Maurice]

You want to cut money from programs for infrastructure? Far more opportunities for that elsewhere in the Federal budget than poor NASA.

 

[FordSVT]

I can't recall ever hearing about writing a congressman on a serious issue actually acheiving anything. Make as well start a petition.

How would you "hear" about it directly? You don't think people in government are influenced when they receive a lot of opinion on a subject from their voters? You're not a Congressman whose constituents have sent a thousand letters and ten thousand emails on a subject. Contrary to popular belief, Senators and Congresspersons do often listen to their own constituents if only to make sure they get re-elected. Voters relay their opinions in many ways, a letter is one of them.

"Writing letters to Congress" generates 11.2 million hits from Google, the first one being...

And it's "Might as well start a petition."

And people pick on NASA because they think they have this tremendously huge budget, and they are short-sighted windbags who don't appreciate science or know much about the work NASA does and how cost-effective they most often are. During it's lifetime it's estimated to have generated more revenue for the government than it has cost, you can't say that about many government departments. So it's "screw NASA".