The cost of space exploration

[Jack_Crossitt]

America already spends $15.5 billion per year on space exploration, less than 1 percent of the overall federal budget. I read about this and I personally feel that they could spend the money on much more worthwhile projects - like health, security, the homeless, education, many things. It would be sensible to leave space exploration alone. We have learnt enough and really don't need to know much more about what is out there. There are more important things to spend money on and space is not one of them.

Anyone agree or disagree?

[BB8:(]

total agree they havent even landed on the moon yet

[Scarlett.]

Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

[bananarama]

I strongly disagree. Space exploration creates high tech jobs and high tech inventions which benefit all. Keeping skilled people in work is not a wast of money........Spending on some of the items listed below is a blatent wast of money.....

Before calling for the cost of space exploration to be spent on other things. Why not call for money not to be wasted on Cosmetics, Gambling, BB voting and such, Big gas guzzling cars, Football matches, Pop music DVD, Films and so and so on. All the above are trivia spending when you consider the starvation that goes on in the world. In the pop world a few get fithy rich at the expence of those who spend on trivia.

Now why do not those that spend on trivia suggest giving up their money wasting habits...

Space research is always an easy target when it comes to ethical spending when in fact you can be sure one day space research will save this planet.....

[bananarama]

Originally posted by BB8:(
total agree they havent even landed on the moon yet

I agree they have certainly not landed on the moon yet. USA biggest con of all times. However I don't agree space exploration is a wast...

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bananarama
Originally posted by BB8:(
total agree they havent even landed on the moon yet

I agree they have certainly not landed on the moon yet. USA biggest con of all times. However I don't agree space exploration is a wast...

Oh yeah



See this site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

And this one (http://www.clavius.org)

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by bananarama
Originally posted by BB8:(
total agree they havent even landed on the moon yet

I agree they have certainly not landed on the moon yet. USA biggest con of all times. However I don't agree space exploration is a wast...

Oh yeah



See this site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

And this one (http://www.clavius.org)



The counter arguments are as big a load of rubbish as the supposed landing.....Strange how they supposedly have the technology to get there yet it will need another 20 years or more before they return. As I said USA biggest con of all times.......

[Harry!]

Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
America already spends $15.5 billion per year on space exploration, less than 1 percent of the overall federal budget. I read about this and I personally feel that they could spend the money on much more worthwhile projects - like health, security, the homeless, education, many things. It would be sensible to leave space exploration alone. We have learnt enough and really don't need to know much more about what is out there. There are more important things to spend money on and space is not one of them.

Anyone agree or disagree?

wow,how much!

[Sticks]

Back then, we had this little thing called the Cold War and there was political will. Today there is not the political will so much, and also back then we were not as risk averse as we are now.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sticks
Back then, we had this little thing called the Cold War and there was political will. Today there is not the political will so much, and also back then we were not as risk averse as we are now.

The political will to fake the landing and put the russians space program out of joint. In that respect they did a good job....It will take 20 years or more now because they do not have and never have had the technology to get there and back alive........

[Jack_Crossitt]

Originally posted by bananarama
I strongly disagree. Space exploration creates high tech jobs and high tech inventions which benefit all. Keeping skilled people in work is not a wast of money........Spending on some of the items listed below is a blatent wast of money.....

Before calling for the cost of space exploration to be spent on other things. Why not call for money not to be wasted on Cosmetics, Gambling, BB voting and such, Big gas guzzling cars, Football matches, Pop music DVD, Films and so and so on. All the above are trivia spending when you consider the starvation that goes on in the world. In the pop world a few get fithy rich at the expence of those who spend on trivia.

Now why do not those that spend on trivia suggest giving up their money wasting habits...

Space research is always an easy target when it comes to ethical spending when in fact you can be sure one day space research will save this planet.....

There are many good reasons for Space exploration and you have certainly highlighted some very good examples above. Astronomy is also a very interesting subject for children and adults alike. From what we come to learn about space and planets, etc is fascinating, educational and important too. Like you rightly said: it could one day save our planet. I also agree that we do waste money on many unimportant ventures and products, but that is another debate. But for every positive, there is a definite negative and when you look at the amount of money which George Bush has set aside in his budget for Space exploration, you need to think of priorities. I think he should at least halve that amount, lets say $7 billion. I know that Space exploration is expensive business, but so is many other projects and important essential mediums - like I also mentioned above.

I have to disagree with your opinion on wasting money on: health, security, the homeless, education. None of those examples I gave are a waste. Keeping people healthy and the health service is very important. That saves lives. Keeping children educated is also very important - a top priority everywhere really. Getting people off the streets and into homes is also vital. Nobody in the 21st century should have to live that way in a civilised society in which Americans live in, just like ourselves here in Great Britain/Europe. So far as my example on security is concerned, after 9/11 and other terrorism attacks or the threat of attacks - I can only re-emphasise the importance of: security.

I think we should agree that the immense amount spent on Space exploration and the need to further our knowledge on space should be overshadowed by more important things. Let us sort out our own planets problems, before throwing more and more money into space, which is a real waste after all.

[Jack_Crossitt]

Originally posted by Chewy
Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

You could say that money is an object - but George Bush also has a budget and even though it is only 1% of the total budget, it is still too much money for something which we really don't need to know much more about

[messierhunter]

Originally posted by bananarama

The political will to fake the landing and put the russians space program out of joint. In that respect they did a good job....It will take 20 years or more now because they do not have and never have had the technology to get there and back alive........

I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. It's taking us 20 years to go back because we aren't funding the return to the moon nearly as much as we funded the initial journey. Aside from developing totally new spacecraft, it costs a good chunk of change to build expendable boosters with enough kick to put men on the moon, that's why they cut the program short - no one wanted to keep funding high enough to keep building Saturn Vs. In 1965 NASA was receiving 24.79 billion dollars, and nearly all of it was dedicated to landing men on the moon (adjusted for inflation to 1996 dollars). Today they are receiving a mere 13 billion (in 1996 dollars) and are having to continue to fund other science programs at the same time that they return to the moon. They are being asked to do more with half the money they got before, so it should be no surprise that it will take twice as long to do. We're going to be sending more men and more equipment than we did before, so that means bigger launching requirements, and more money being spent.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to believe we didn't go to the moon, there are no true anomolies in the moon photos and videos, only false pretenses about what you "should" see in pictures taken on the surface of the moon.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bananarama
Originally posted by Sticks
Back then, we had this little thing called the Cold War and there was political will. Today there is not the political will so much, and also back then we were not as risk averse as we are now.

The political will to fake the landing and put the russians space program out of joint. In that respect they did a good job....It will take 20 years or more now because they do not have and never have had the technology to get there and back alive........

If this had been faked, then the Russians would have exposed it and embarrassed the US. Plus as this was done in the full glare of publicity, other countries, not friendly with the US were monitoring this and would have cried foul.

Why would the deadly foe of the US at that time acknowledge that they did happen if it did not. The Soviets admitted that the Americans did land on the Moon.

As far as "safely" that is usually taken to mean the radiation issue,

which is addressed here (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)

What is also forgotten, in the run up to Apollo were the Murcury and the Gemini missions which rought in quite a lot of data for the later missions.

[messierhunter]

Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by Chewy
Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

You could say that money is an object - but George Bush also has a budget and even though it is only 1% of the total budget, it is still too much money for something which we really don't need to know much more about

We need to know a LOT more about what's out there. It could lead to breakthroughs in new forms of energy production, the spinoffs of technology designed for spacetravel has given us huge health and living benefits on earth. Pace makers, tennis shoes, personal computers, radiation hazard detectors, emergency rescue equipment, self-righting life rafts, safer mammography x-rays, all are things that are either made possible by, or enhanced by space technology spinoffs. Without space travel you wouldn't have these things. Early hurricane detection, warning, and tracking? Forget about it, without funding space programs your accuracy in tracking storms will falter. We cannot afford to stop funding the space program, it's only a tiny part of the budget and the benefits are priceless because they save human lives.

[Jack_Crossitt]

Originally posted by messierhunter
Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by Chewy
Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

You could say that money is an object - but George Bush also has a budget and even though it is only 1% of the total budget, it is still too much money for something which we really don't need to know much more about

We need to know a LOT more about what's out there. It could lead to breakthroughs in new forms of energy production, the spinoffs of technology designed for spacetravel has given us huge health and living benefits on earth. Pace makers, tennis shoes, personal computers, radiation hazard detectors, emergency rescue equipment, self-righting life rafts, safer mammography x-rays, all are things that are either made possible by, or enhanced by space technology spinoffs. Without space travel you wouldn't have these things. Early hurricane detection, warning, and tracking? Forget about it, without funding space programs your accuracy in tracking storms will falter. We cannot afford to stop funding the space program, it's only a tiny part of the budget and the benefits are priceless because they save human lives.

I can only agree with the positives you have mentioned, but we need to look at what is happening in our own world first and every pound/dollar thrown into space is a pound/dollar less spent on more pressing priorities and personally I feel it is a waste of money. Every dollar that George Bush and his predecessors have spent on space has been very useful indeed and I couldn't agree more, that they need to continue spending some amount, but the amount should be halved, as we have come to a point now where we seem to be wasting billions of dollars.

If $7 billion was enough and there was $8 billion spare, then they would find something to spend that amount on. Pointless ventures in space which are just not needed. We have really learnt enough and a smaller budget would give us what we require, but a bigger one is a waste of money and from what I read, George Bush wants to increase that amount

[spacebandit]

If mankind hadn't spent the money after 1945 killing each other, and making weapons, unused, to destroy the world and instead spent the money of exploring our environment and outer space we would probably be on Mars now and preparing for future missions beyond.

Instead we rape the planet to the point where we are about to return to the stone age - and we, as a species, deserve it - maybe we'll do better second time around.

[BB8:(]

Why has America not sent anyone else to the moon then (because it impossible with the technology e have today)

also the Hubble space telescope is powerful enough to see the landing sight so why wont America let us see it

[Sticks]

Originally posted by BB8:(
Why has America not sent anyone else to the moon then (because it impossible with the technology e have today)

also the Hubble space telescope is powerful enough to see the landing sight so why wont America let us see it

1) We had the technology, but it was expensive and riskier than people are prepared to accept today. Check the details of the Soviet programme and how they kept going despite the high cost in lives.

2) The issue with Hubble is to do with optical resolution and light. At long distances it can grab light from Galaxies at the edge of the known universe, but it takes a long time to acquire it. Now try staring at the moon and then see if you can see anything else in the night sky. Hubble can only image the moon briefly without doing any damage. Also it does not have the optical resolution to image something that small

For all you answers try this site (http://www.clavius.org) which has been put up by someone not connected with NASA, but is a trained Aeronautical engineer with extensive experience of the theatre and lighting.

[MR.K!]

the moon landing was fake... because in the actual moon landing they show the american flag waving.. but in space there is no gravity so it would be inpossible as there is no wind or currents...

[Red Moon]

Originally posted by Caw
the moon landing was fake... because in the actual moon landing they show the american flag waving.. but in space there is no gravity so it would be inpossible as there is no wind or currents...

All these points have been answered by NASA

Originally posted by NASA
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!

Source: The Great Moon Hoax (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm)

[Retroman]

Space exploration isn't a total waste...
However, the technology we do gain from it, would be better if ONLY that technology was researched.

Without the shuttle launch and everything else that comes with it.
Our space exploration is very limited, and im afraid to say there's probably not a great deal we can learn from nearby planets...
Spending such a high amount of money on researching rather pointless and non beneficial matters of the moon, or mars, isn't such a wise move in my opinion. It's just money wasted on curiousity, curiousity that really isn't benefitting anyone at all.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with our own planet, instead of planets with virtually nothing of importance on them.

In short, I do think such a large amount of money could do a lot more good for our world if it was spent on those that needed it. Our technology needs to advance much, much further before space exploration becomes something worth putting so much money into, in my eyes.

You could argue that our current space exploration is what's moving us towards more advanced technology. But as I said, all the technology involved can easily be invented and researched without actually having to explore space. Exploring space being the one thing that takes up quite a lot of the budget.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Caw
the moon landing was fake... because in the actual moon landing they show the american flag waving.. but in space there is no gravity so it would be inpossible as there is no wind or currents...

If you do not trust NASA

Try this site from an independent analyst (http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html)

Also you may want to try this little movie



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc&mode=related&search=

[Sticks]

The flag


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns

[Sticks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspt2xD4VsY

Part 3

[danscope3]

Hi Retroman, Well said. Our presents in space should mainly be as a robotic state. We have the shuttle and perhaps will build a refined flight p;atfor with
as good or better reliability for servicing our orbital inventions. These are the reasonable jobs and rational envelope of our need to go into space.
The esoteric concept of solar and extra solar exploration in the interest of expensive gravel ignores the pressing problems here on earth.
Imagine the monorail we could build for those billions? Imagine the whole new alternative energy industry that we can put online 20 years ahead of it's time , saving oil for airtravel where it is needed? I could go on and on.
To waste money on Mars when our rivers go un cleaned and our fisheries disappear is fool hardy. Fix the earth before you scratch the stars.
This is, in fact, the best thing in the solar system.

" Oh...the grass is always greener...in the other lellow's yard.
A little row....we have to hoe..... oh boy, that's hard!
Now, you always see the fine clothes..that the folks have on their backs.
But...you never see the mortgages that are hanging on their shacks! :)
You used to like our little roadter...till the days got dearsey Dan.
And now you say our roadster's just 'An old tomato can' .
But if we all could wear green glasses now.... it wouldn't be so hard.....
To see how green that grass is in our own.......back........yard!

...........an old song for a new day.
Best regards, Dan Bessette

[Benji]

Personally, i dont think its got anything to do with us. Were English.

So, im not interested at all at what the americans are doing.

[Red Moon]

Originally posted by Benji
Personally, i dont think its got anything to do with us. Were English.

We are part of the European Space Agency and therefore part of Columbus laboratory project being readied for launch to the International Space Station. In addition to this we were the 6th Nation to achieve orbital capacity after Russia, America, France, Japan and China.

So it does have something to do with the British.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by bananarama
Originally posted by Sticks
Back then, we had this little thing called the Cold War and there was political will. Today there is not the political will so much, and also back then we were not as risk averse as we are now.

The political will to fake the landing and put the russians space program out of joint. In that respect they did a good job....It will take 20 years or more now because they do not have and never have had the technology to get there and back alive........

If this had been faked, then the Russians would have exposed it and embarrassed the US. Plus as this was done in the full glare of publicity, other countries, not friendly with the US were monitoring this and would have cried foul.

Why would the deadly foe of the US at that time acknowledge that they did happen if it did not. The Soviets admitted that the Americans did land on the Moon.

As far as "safely" that is usually taken to mean the radiation issue,

which is addressed here (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)

What is also forgotten, in the run up to Apollo were the Murcury and the Gemini missions which rought in quite a lot of data for the later missions.


It's not the Russians Americans fear it's the planned Chinese moon advetures. They could expose the American con of all times if the US does not get there before them....

[bananarama]

To many years and to much money has been wasted on the Space station which has been a diversion to keep the Russians out of thinking and affording their own moon mission. China's ambitions have thrown a spanner in the works of the American con........

[James]

There's no reason to believe the moon landings were a con.

It's a typical conspiracy theory - in other words people came up with the 'answer' first and then selectively used evidence to support it rather than the proper line of investigation where the answer is determined by the evidence.

BTW, Sticks I thought you believed the moon landing hoax theory? Have you changed your mind?

[bananarama]

Believing the Americans went to the moon is like believing mount everest can be climbed by a man with no arms.......

[Red Moon]

Originally posted by bananarama
It's not the Russians Americans fear it's the planned Chinese moon advetures. They could expose the American con of all times if the US does not get there before them....

The Russians did try and put a man on the moon and if it was for the failure of the N1 rocket they might have achieved it. There is no reason to think that with the advances in technology since the late 1960's that if the N1 rocket design was resurrected and submitted to modern rocket simulation program that the faults in the rocket could be corrected and a successful mission made with the right funding within a few years.

So it is not just China that America has to fear.

China's space program is currently years behind that of America and Russia and although it is catching up it still has away before it can get to the moon. It hasn't even started a design for a rocket that is powerful enough to make the trip.

At least the Russians have made that start.

Referance (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_lunar.html)

Originally posted by bananarama
Believing the Americans went to the moon is like believing mount everest can be climbed by a man with no arms.......

Tom Whittaker only had one foot when he climbed the mountian and Erik Weihenmayer was blind when he climb Everest. Then don't forget Kim Hong-Bin, whose hands had been amputated who failed to get the top but did reaching 24,000 feet before he had to give up.

So you never know.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by James
BTW, Sticks I thought you believed the moon landing hoax theory? Have you changed your mind?

So how did I give that impression :conf:

I post on Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (http://www.bautforum.com) where we debunk these conspiracy theories amongst other things.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by BB8:(

also the Hubble space telescope is powerful enough to see the landing sight so why wont America let us see it

Unfortunately no,
the most powerful telescope we have, at the best resolution currently available when looking the moon gives what looks to be a pretty clear of the surface

But Hubble only has a 2.4 metre mirror, and each pixel at the best resolution covers approximately 86 metres of lunar surface, the landers are considerably smaller

The largest telescope will be the Magellan, which which will have a 24.5 metre mirror, made up of seven 8 metre reflectors in sequence - and still to take a picture of the lunar surface where one pixel = the size of the lunar landing craft will take a telescope 4 times the size of Magellan. And one pixel will not be enough to positively identify the object

the best chance of proving and also disproving the hoax is Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2008, although funded in part by the Japanese it will fall under the control of Nasa.

[Sticks]

My very short film


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ay3tUi68E

Incidentally, during Apollo XI the left a laser reflector on the moon, which they regularly use to bounce lasers off of. I remember on a Channel 5 show how someone from an observatory who sends laser beams up in order to make measurements that moon hoax believers have never spoken to them.

[Ross]

Originally posted by bananarama
Believing the Americans went to the moon is like believing mount everest can be climbed by a man with no arms.......
That made me laugh. :wink:

[spacebandit]

Proof that the moon landings were faked

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

Surely there can no more doubt - we were duped!!

[BB8:(]

Originally posted by spacebandit
Proof that the moon landings were faked

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

Surely there can no more doubt - we were duped!!

well that raps that up then lol

[James]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by James
BTW, Sticks I thought you believed the moon landing hoax theory? Have you changed your mind?

So how did I give that impression :conf:

I post on Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (http://www.bautforum.com) where we debunk these conspiracy theories amongst other things.

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=28300#pid53776

[Sticks]

Can't remember what I was thinking at that time. According to BAUT I joined in January 2004 a few months after those posts, but my first post there

Looking at my first ever post there (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/8837-more-moon-hoax-questions.html#post163515) I may have been doing my opening Devil's advocate gambit back then as well. (Full Thread) (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/8837-more-moon-hoax-questions.html)

:blush:

That is the only thing I can think of.

[Sticks]

It looks like I was playing Devil's Advocate at the time (http://www.bautforum.com/383657-post24.html)

I had just transferred from being a Cyber Warrior so was still finding my feet at the Office of the Cyber Devil's Advocate General at that time.

[messierhunter]

Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by messierhunter
Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by Chewy
Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

You could say that money is an object - but George Bush also has a budget and even though it is only 1% of the total budget, it is still too much money for something which we really don't need to know much more about

We need to know a LOT more about what's out there. It could lead to breakthroughs in new forms of energy production, the spinoffs of technology designed for spacetravel has given us huge health and living benefits on earth. Pace makers, tennis shoes, personal computers, radiation hazard detectors, emergency rescue equipment, self-righting life rafts, safer mammography x-rays, all are things that are either made possible by, or enhanced by space technology spinoffs. Without space travel you wouldn't have these things. Early hurricane detection, warning, and tracking? Forget about it, without funding space programs your accuracy in tracking storms will falter. We cannot afford to stop funding the space program, it's only a tiny part of the budget and the benefits are priceless because they save human lives.

I can only agree with the positives you have mentioned, but we need to look at what is happening in our own world first and every pound/dollar thrown into space is a pound/dollar less spent on more pressing priorities and personally I feel it is a waste of money. Every dollar that George Bush and his predecessors have spent on space has been very useful indeed and I couldn't agree more, that they need to continue spending some amount, but the amount should be halved, as we have come to a point now where we seem to be wasting billions of dollars.

If $7 billion was enough and there was $8 billion spare, then they would find something to spend that amount on. Pointless ventures in space which are just not needed. We have really learnt enough and a smaller budget would give us what we require, but a bigger one is a waste of money and from what I read, George Bush wants to increase that amount
On what basis do you say that we should halve the amounts of space exploration spending? NASA's budget is strained as it is. Any further cutbacks of that extreme nature will either stall robotic exploration or manned exploration indefinately, depending on which is cut. Shouldn't we be cutting back on truly wasteful spending FIRST and then decide how much we can afford to spend on space and everything else? We wated 100 million in UNUSED airline tickets at the federal level between 97 and 03. They didn't even bother to get a refund when it was available. Federal student loan programs have 21.8 billion in defaulted loans and an unknown amount of fraud probably accounts for a large part of this. We know that there are cases of fake students applying for loans and getting them with totally forged documents. Medicare overpays for drugs and equipment so much so that fixing it could save 20 to 30 billion a year without reducing any benefits at all. THAT is wasteful spending, where you don't get anything out of your money. If you cleaned this up it could easily pay for NASA's budget entirely and then some.

I see no reason at all to reduce NASA's budget by a single penny until this and the rest of the completely wasted government spending are fixed. There should be no priority higher than some of the things that are covered by space exploration and technology such as storm monitoring, national security, and planetary defense/NEO monitoring. There should be no higher priority. If you cleaned up the completely wasted dollars, even mostly, then you'd have more than enough money to fund all kinds of feel-good social programs without having to raise taxes nor cut any other useful spending.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by messierhunter
Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by messierhunter
Originally posted by Jack_Crossitt
Originally posted by Chewy
Thing is the money is an object, who cares? we should go to space:thumbs:

You could say that money is an object - but George Bush also has a budget and even though it is only 1% of the total budget, it is still too much money for something which we really don't need to know much more about

We need to know a LOT more about what's out there. It could lead to breakthroughs in new forms of energy production, the spinoffs of technology designed for spacetravel has given us huge health and living benefits on earth. Pace makers, tennis shoes, personal computers, radiation hazard detectors, emergency rescue equipment, self-righting life rafts, safer mammography x-rays, all are things that are either made possible by, or enhanced by space technology spinoffs. Without space travel you wouldn't have these things. Early hurricane detection, warning, and tracking? Forget about it, without funding space programs your accuracy in tracking storms will falter. We cannot afford to stop funding the space program, it's only a tiny part of the budget and the benefits are priceless because they save human lives.

I can only agree with the positives you have mentioned, but we need to look at what is happening in our own world first and every pound/dollar thrown into space is a pound/dollar less spent on more pressing priorities and personally I feel it is a waste of money. Every dollar that George Bush and his predecessors have spent on space has been very useful indeed and I couldn't agree more, that they need to continue spending some amount, but the amount should be halved, as we have come to a point now where we seem to be wasting billions of dollars.

If $7 billion was enough and there was $8 billion spare, then they would find something to spend that amount on. Pointless ventures in space which are just not needed. We have really learnt enough and a smaller budget would give us what we require, but a bigger one is a waste of money and from what I read, George Bush wants to increase that amount
On what basis do you say that we should halve the amounts of space exploration spending? NASA's budget is strained as it is. Any further cutbacks of that extreme nature will either stall robotic exploration or manned exploration indefinately, depending on which is cut. Shouldn't we be cutting back on truly wasteful spending FIRST and then decide how much we can afford to spend on space and everything else? We wated 100 million in UNUSED airline tickets at the federal level between 97 and 03. They didn't even bother to get a refund when it was available. Federal student loan programs have 21.8 billion in defaulted loans and an unknown amount of fraud probably accounts for a large part of this. We know that there are cases of fake students applying for loans and getting them with totally forged documents. Medicare overpays for drugs and equipment so much so that fixing it could save 20 to 30 billion a year without reducing any benefits at all. THAT is wasteful spending, where you don't get anything out of your money. If you cleaned this up it could easily pay for NASA's budget entirely and then some.

I see no reason at all to reduce NASA's budget by a single penny until this and the rest of the completely wasted government spending are fixed. There should be no priority higher than some of the things that are covered by space exploration and technology such as storm monitoring, national security, and planetary defense/NEO monitoring. There should be no higher priority. If you cleaned up the completely wasted dollars, even mostly, then you'd have more than enough money to fund all kinds of feel-good social programs without having to raise taxes nor cut any other useful spending.


I agree messierhunter. When I think about the amount of money wasted on recreational drug taking binge boozing and smoking and all the expence of dealing with the problems they cause it makes me sick to hear people complaining about space research being a wast of money.......

[Sticks]

My latest film in this series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N5Aou5BfhM