http://www.hutchnews.com/Columns/Guest-column---NASA--1

WTF?

This decision is about 10 years too soon. There needs to be real and viable commercial space systems before this decision can be made. We spend billions upon billions on killing and blowing things up, yet we can't spend a little money on good will that excites the whole world.

>>"NASA has always been a political football. Its lifeblood is money, and it has been losing blood for several decades. The only hope now for a life-saving transfusion to stop the hemorrhaging is Congress."<<

'Hemorrhaging' = bleeding. Giving a transfusion while bleeding is ongoing & unchecked is largely pointless.

>>"After 50 years and several hundred billion dollars, the accomplishments of NASA and the U.S. space program in science, technology and exploration are unchallenged. They are admired, respected and envied by people and countries around the world. Our space program has provided inspiration to the human spirit for young and old alike. It said proudly to the world that Americans could accomplish whatever they set their minds to. Young people have always been inspired with talk of sending explorers to the planets."<<

In no way are these bolded things unimportant or insignificant... but recognize that they are all emotional responses...... emotional responses that cost "several hundred billions".

Is space travel cool? YES! Is it massively expensive meanwhile being completely elective? YES!

Simply put: I have no problem with a space program, even without widespread, demostratable benefits to everyday Joe, PROVIDED there's money for it. Right now, funding emtional responses should not be high on the list of things to spend money on that we don't have.

American astronauts will not travel into space on American-developed and -built spacecraft until at least 2016 or 2017.

So you'll have to bum a ride for the next few years. Is it such a big deal to let pride take a back seat for such a short while?

This is a mistake...

So to those who support fully funding NASA, is the idea we allow Darwin to take care of those on earth who are sick and without healthcare while we go off searching for new life elsewhere?

So to those who support fully funding NASA, is the idea we allow Darwin to take care of those on earth who are sick and without healthcare while we go off searching for new life elsewhere?

I think NASA and Health Care are in the same category when it comes to what the government cares about. They pretend like they do, but they really don't.

I think NASA and Health Care are in the same category when it comes to what the government cares about. They pretend like they do, but they really don't.

Without NASA, a lot of very important technologies would never have come about. The military had better care about the NASA's funding (especially if the aliens visit ;-) ).

Without NASA, a lot of very important technologies would never have come about. The military had better care about the NASA's funding (especially if the aliens visit ;-) ).

Velcro?

As much of a supporter of science and technology I am, I've long thought of NASA as a big money pit...billions have poured in over the decades, but how useful have been the results?

I'd rather see money spent on things helpful to human life here on earth..cancer and disease research, univeral broadband infrastructure, alternative energy development, high speed rail, etc.

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

As much of a supporter of science and technology I am, I've long thought of NASA as a big money pit...billions have poured in over the decades, but how useful have been the results?

NASA has had boondoggles, sure... but their budget is nowhere the big money pit as most US budgets draws.

I'd rather see money spent on things helpful to human life here on earth..cancer and disease research, univeral broadband infrastructure, alternative energy development, high speed rail, etc.

Oh, Utopia... well, thats not coming. There no money in curing cancer permanently. No money in making people live longer. Watch Idiocracy and view our future. Its about keeping the masses poor, dumb, unarmed and dependant.

At least NASA provides a distant hope of getting some people off this rock, where a newfound freedom will be found.

Oh, Utopia... well, thats not coming. There no money in curing cancer permanently. No money in making people live longer. Watch Idiocracy and view our future. Its about keeping the masses poor, dumb, unarmed and dependant.

<cynical>

Sad but true. Got to keep the masses fat, dumb and happy with the high fructose corn syrup and other chemically engineered garbage (fast food, soft drinks, etc) that corrupt companies like Monsanto push...keep the masses in their f*cking boring Toyotas driving to their soul-destroying corporate jobs, helping to keep the corrupt system going.

Curing cancer or other major diseases would not be profitable for the corrupt insurance companies, pharma companies, hospitals.

</cynical>

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Velcro?

As much of a supporter of science and technology I am, I've long thought of NASA as a big money pit...billions have poured in over the decades, but how useful have been the results?

I'd rather see money spent on things helpful to human life here on earth..cancer and disease research, univeral broadband infrastructure, alternative energy development, high speed rail, etc.

If you believe that those things are important, then you should support NASA as that's where the tech for such things comes from.

-NASA's budget is less than 1% of our overall budget.

-The rate of return on our investment comes in at $7 for every $1 spent.

-The technology you use everyday stems directly from NASA programs.

-The administration is proposing to actually spend more money on NASA while at the same time gutting their autonomy and ousourcing to private firms and foreign governments. If that's not stupid, what is?

-The Constellation program (return to the moon) that they plan to kill is already well underway and we have spent over 9 billion on it so far. Really want to toss all of that away?

- And, let's consider the thousands of jobs that will be lost because of this. Do we really want to do that to our best and brightest?

No, this is a mindless, pandering act - Hell, Gingrich has endorsed it!

Think it over folks.

I do agree with Camino in teh sense that while NASA may be a "money pit" what they spend annually is nothing compared to all the money we waste throwing at say, pointless wars, or bailing out big banks.

A few reasons why NASA isn't a money pit, and why it matters.

Read-up:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Web design fail. The text goes off of the reading area and into space.

Looks Looks normal for me.

Don't click the links, just scroll down and read. It's all on that page.

>>"-The rate of return on our investment comes in at $7 for every $1 spent."<<

Wait- a 700% return on space exploration ??? How is this measured, exactly ??

If true, let's fly our budget deficet (sp) to the moon !!!

>>"-The rate of return on our investment comes in at $7 for every $1 spent."<<

Wait- a 700% return on space exploration ??? How is this measured, exactly ??

If true, let's fly our budget deficet (sp) to the moon !!!

NASA holds thousands and thousands of tech patents that industry uses.

How exactly the numbers are figured, I can't answer. But suffice it to say that for half a century NASA has been an ongoing, and successful "stimulus package" all by itself.

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Camino LS6

Looks Looks normal for me.

That's what happens when one don't check browser compatibility. Yeah I'm referring to the main article you sent.

That's what happens when one don't check browser compatibility. Yeah I'm referring to the main article you sent.

Wait, now I'm confused. Are you talking about the link in my original post, or the one I just posted?

The one I just posted works just fine for me.

The one you just posted.

Odd, it works fine for me - no scrolling.

After the Columbia disaster, I wrote a little tribute and posted it to a website I frequented at the time. Another poster there was a NASA employee and she printed it out and placed it at the makeshift memorial outside the NASA offfices.

Today she is expecting to lose her job after 13 tears.

So to those who support fully funding NASA, is the idea we allow Darwin to take care of those on earth who are sick and without healthcare while we go off searching for new life elsewhere?

Good companies continue to invest in research and technology during the bad times so they have a better shot of returning to the good times. Is this any different than a nation? I don't pretend to be an accountant but there must be some other place in the budget where a few sweet deals and pork projects can be cut to keep NASA afloat.

It would be a shame to see NASA go. The space program has inspired me so much throughout my life, and there is no questions the technology and developments that have surely stemmed from NASA have contributed in unimaginable ways to our world. I feel there is a lot that can be exploited with NASA, but much of it is just stagnant at the moment, and it is a damn shame to see such an epitome of progress go to waste.

It is a dream of mine to be involved in such a program, which is why I see Richard Branson as one of my idols. I know he isn't really affiliated with NASA, but perhaps privatization is the future.

Edited February 17, 201016 yr by Nick

After the Columbia disaster, I wrote a little tribute and posted it to a website I frequented at the time. Another poster there was a NASA employee and she printed it out and placed it at the makeshift memorial outside the NASA offfices.

Today she is expecting to lose her job after 13 tears.

I have a friend from college who works as an electrical engineer for Lockheed Martin and is expecting to lose his job also due to the cuts.

Loved the rest of this post, Camino. You phrased a bunch of things I wasn't able to put together.

-NASA's budget is less than 1% of our overall budget.

One thing that drives me nuts about NASA is that its highly visible successes end up hurting its image. If I had a nickel for everytime I heard somebody watch a rocket/shuttle launch or a spacecraft going farther than man could imagine and they go, "Boy, that looks expensive. Why are we spending this money? (and not giving it to me)". Yeah, it is expensive... but the problem is that its nothing compared to the money we waste on everything else.

I wish it was possible to profoundly show people just how much money some parts of our government is blowing. But the problem is that for much of the population, they can't grasp a thousand-fold increase or even a hundred-fold increase sometimes. Adding a 0 to the end of $1000000000 is a bit more than adding a 0 to $10.

NASA holds thousands and thousands of tech patents that industry uses. How exactly the numbers are figured, I can't answer. But suffice it to say that for half a century NASA has been an ongoing, and successful "stimulus package" all by itself.

IF true, then the program is free to the point of being a money-maker, bottom-line.

IF true, then, I'm all for NASA.

But somehow I doubt that NASA has made 'several hundred billion' TIMES 7, tho (or times any factor)... but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

This is a mistake...

+1

So to those who support fully funding NASA, is the idea we allow Darwin to take care of those on earth who are sick and without healthcare while we go off searching for new life elsewhere?

Please don't get me started about Darwin.......

I think NASA and Health Care are in the same category when it comes to what the government cares about. They pretend like they do, but they really don't.

+1

I have a friend from college who works as an electrical engineer for Lockheed Martin and is expecting to lose his job also due to the cuts.

and then do what? would you like fries with that? (like what over half us architects are saying right now).....

so much for incentive for our country to cultivate science and technology

So to those who support fully funding NASA, is the idea we allow Darwin to take care of those on earth who are sick and without healthcare while we go off searching for new life elsewhere?

NASA and healthcare are non related entities.

and their function and what they provide to the citizens should be of no expense to each other.

this falls in line with the whole 'if we use public money to build a stadium then we will have to close schools in the inner city' BS.

the problems with health care were not a creation of NASA, and thus the solution and reform and fixing health care should not come at the expense of NASA. Killing NASA does not fix the problems with health care that caused it to be broken or need to be fixed.

IF true, then the program is free to the point of being a money-maker, bottom-line.

IF true, then, I'm all for NASA.

But somehow I doubt that NASA has made 'several hundred billion' TIMES 7, tho (or times any factor)... but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I'm not much of a researcher on things like this, and there are hugely variable interpretations of the true ROI from Nasa, but this Wikipedia entry has some good information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Scroll way down for the ROI information.

On your way to that information, stop at the breakdown of the NASA budget year-by-year. There you will find just how little we have spent on NASA relative to federal spending in general. It also clearly shows how NASA has been a punching bag for the idiots in Congress over the years.

The villians become clear as well.

Interesting, but somewhat vague:

>>"$21.6 billion in sales and benefits"<<

NASA sells stuff ?? What is a "benefit" ?? Would like more info here.

>>"jobs created or saved"<<

>>"$355 million in federal corporate income taxes ('76-84)"<<

Sounds like a LOT, but '76's budget alone was 3.6 Billion.

Still, its enough for me to keep my mind open.

Like I said above- I don't have an issue with what NASA does, my impression was toward what I thought it cost.

It would seem that no one has a real handle on the economic nuts and bolts of the last 50 years of NASA. But, the net is that everything from cordless tools to life-saving heart tech stems from NASA research. The tech patents run into the tens of thousands, so extrapolate that to all of the possible applications.

All of the economic stuff aside, I see the real value elsewhere.

And I believe it is essential to the survival of the country as anything recognizable as such going forward.

If we abdicate our role as leader here, China will be happy to take over.

I'm so tired of seeing all that is good in America being sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity. I just can't stand the thought of a least-common-denominator future.

its getting exhausting. that's for sure.

Yay, make cuts to the industry I'm going into. FU once more, current US administration.