Poll: NASA and public funding

[cleverlymadeup]

Sure as hell a better cause than healthcare.

that's wrong on so many levels it's not even worth getting into.

just as a side note Russia can do both healthcare AND a space program and so can every other European country

And you got me wrong for goverment 25 billion $ is small money for me hell 1? means a lot, but you are right I don't know the value of dollar as I use ? in my country=).

$25 billion is still a lot in terms of the government. That kind of money can pay for all kinds of stuff. And guess what. It comes out of my paycheck, so I expect it to be used properly and efficiently, not frivolously on pet projects. Maybe your country can start a space program or you can take up collections and give it to NASA. I already pay enough in taxes.

compare that money to the military budget and then $25 billion is chump change

 

[Cyberjester]

I was just wondering if NASA would make that people could give them money for support, as we all know that US is cheap anything that is not related to military.

Easy, militarize it. Stop with the peace, love and goodwill to all crap. No-one believes them anyway. Make fusion generators, anti-grav technology, etc. Imagine what NASA could do if it really tried.

Although.. I'm all for making the USA and Aus fascist states where I'm in control of Aus and a partner is head of USA. If only because I'd get a lot more done then any other politician to date. =P Same with USA. If they stopped trying to peacekeep countries that are tearing each other apart, and stopped caring what the masses think, and dropped the 16th century rules of engagement nonsense, we'd be on the moon in 10 years time, Neuromancer style.

 

[Nmil-ek]

How about we fix thing's on our own already terraformed little piece of rock before spening Trillions launching to Mars or something, space travel is a pipe dream until we find a viable fuel scource we cant keep burning up oil and petrol like thye will never run out.

 

[Altorin]

that's not public funding, that's private funding

Public Funding is when funding is given by the government to subsidize the cost of a program, such as a public school.

Private Funding is when private citizens or privately owned companies (IE, not government run) fund projects or pay for things.

 

[Altorin]

I would since England's space program consists of two men and a fisher price "Kiddy's first telescope". I'm interested in outer space but recently NASA has been a bit lame.

Blowing up the moon? Send dudes to mars and annoy an alien race so we get whiped out with a powerful doom laser. Thats what I want from America's space program.

sort of reminds me of the Australia Simpsons

"THIS IS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE PRIME MINISTER!"
"HEEEY!!! PRIME MINISTER!! .... ANDY!!!"
"G'day Gents! What's the good word?"

 

[Altorin]

I would since England's space program consists of two men and a fisher price "Kiddy's first telescope". I'm interested in outer space but recently NASA has been a bit lame.

Blowing up the moon? Send dudes to mars and annoy an alien race so we get whiped out with a powerful doom laser. Thats what I want from America's space program.

sort of reminds me of the Australia Simpsons

"THIS IS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE PRIME MINISTER!"
"HEEEY!!! PRIME MINISTER!! .... ANDY!!!"
"G'day Gents! What's the good word?"

I'm intrigued by your logic path... no wait not intrigued confused horribly confused.

It's almost 3am here. The logic path is a figure 8 with the words "Keep going!" Spray Painted on the ground.

 

[Nickolai77]

Anyway...back on topic

It would be a nice idea to send private donations to NASA, but i imagine they already take quite a few private donations. The thing is, with charity it would not make more than a few million a year, which as someone said before, is pocketmoney to NASA.

We know everything we need to know about the moon already. The only benefits of a moon colony right now would be extremely obscure studies that in all probability will have absolutely no effect on humanity. We don't yet have the technology to do anything useful on the moon, thus getting a colony on the moon would be grand and pointless. In the meantime, such advances in technology can be formulated just as effectively on Earth.

Well, i see two main benifits of a lunar colony. One, if you site a lunar teliscope on the dark side of the moon, you would be able to see a heck of a lot of the universe, quite a bit more than what a teliscope in earths orbit could see. Secondly, we would learn how to run colonies, and how to overcome various problems with it. It's never too early to learn about these things.


The way i would go about setting up a lunar colony is through baby steps. Set up a space station in lunar orbit (we already know how to do those)and from there astronauts can make sorties down to the moons surface. Then NASA or whomever can start gradually setting up a base on the moon. They could try and mine the water beneath the moons surface, and perhaps later set up a teliscope. I think someone said earler that there are a few resources on the moon that could be mined, but yeah you could do quite a bit with a lunar colony. I think someone said that the ESA would work with NASA on the lunar colony, which is a good to hear- the more nations you can get on the lunar project the better, it means more money and more talent going into the project.

I think a lunar colony would have more practical benifit than having the prestige of getting a man to Mars. If NASA decides to invest its resources in the lunar colony the Chinese will probably go to Mars. They are the kind of nation that would do that.

 

[atol]

Well, i see two main benifits of a lunar colony. One, if you site a lunar teliscope on the dark side of the moon, you would be able to see a heck of a lot of the universe, quite a bit more than what a teliscope in earths orbit could see. Secondly, we would learn how to run colonies, and how to overcome various problems with it. It's never too early to learn about these things.


The way i would go about setting up a lunar colony is through baby steps. Set up a space station in lunar orbit (we already know how to do those)and from there astronauts can make sorties down to the moons surface. Then NASA or whomever can start gradually setting up a base on the moon. They could try and mine the water beneath the moons surface, and perhaps later set up a teliscope. I think someone said earler that there are a few resources on the moon that could be mined, but yeah you could do quite a bit with a lunar colony. I think someone said that the ESA would work with NASA on the lunar colony, which is a good to hear- the more nations you can get on the lunar project the better, it means more money and more talent going into the project.

I think a lunar colony would have more practical benifit than having the prestige of getting a man to Mars. If NASA decides to invest its resources in the lunar colony the Chinese will probably go to Mars. They are the kind of nation that would do that.

It seems like you're skipping a lot of necessary and overwhelming logistics.
Putting a telescope on the dark side of the moon is redundant when it can just as well be put into Earth's orbit. There's a reason the most powerful telescopes are on the surface, though.
A space station in lunar orbit would also be somewhat redundant. The reason Earth has a space station is because Earth has a powerful gravity well. The amount of force required to reach orbit from Earth's surface is over 20x that of leaving the moon's. Those aside...
The amount of structural and economic support required to start a mining operation on the moon would be immense (if it's even useful to do so). Any ores would have to be used on the moon as well, and that just escalates the required support. Think about all the resources that that would cost Earth to get all those materials into space and safely to the moon.
In my opinion, there's nothing useful on the moon to warrant colonizing it. If it's decided that we will, then it will be because of merit first, and obscure research second. If you're worried we'll run out of room for expansion on Earth, the oceans would probably be easier to colonize in the long run. We need to create a much larger foothold in Earth's orbit before we think about moving into any other celestial bodies, along with a much more efficient means to reach orbit from Earth's surface (space elevators and such).

 

[Puzzles]

A space program is important for many things, including your latest little fancy phone... So yeah.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

no...then again Im not from the USA

 

[Woodsey]

I doubt they could get enough donations to help funding with anything.

They spend millions just making sure the toilet in the shuttle flushes correctly.

The space program, unfortunately, seems to have taken a back seat - it feels very much like everyone's saying (as in the general public), "we got to the moon, that'll do" and no one's interested any more.

 

[little.09]

no. nasa i a money pit. sure they do some interesting things but they way it was spread out so not to fall under state laws makes it cost so much to run and they have not made any progress in increasing the standard of living of the US or any country for at least 20-30 years. Also has anyone read anything about nasa at the moment there shuttles are being retired and they don't have a new design yet so they are going to leech of commercial shuttles.

Also sorry about the spelling and grammar its 2 in the morning

 

[sln333]

no. nasa i a money pit. sure they do some interesting things but they way it was spread out so not to fall under state laws makes it cost so much to run and they have not made any progress in increasing the standard of living of the US or any country for at least 20-30 years. Also has anyone read anything about nasa at the moment there shuttles are being retired and they don't have a new design yet so they are going to leech of commercial shuttles.

Also sorry about the spelling and grammar its 2 in the morning

It isn't NASA's job to increase the standard of living. It's their job to do space research and scientific research. Yes, they are retiring their shuttles, but it's to eventually use a better set.

 

[Nickolai77]

Well, i see two main benifits of a lunar colony. One, if you site a lunar teliscope on the dark side of the moon, you would be able to see a heck of a lot of the universe, quite a bit more than what a teliscope in earths orbit could see. Secondly, we would learn how to run colonies, and how to overcome various problems with it. It's never too early to learn about these things.


The way i would go about setting up a lunar colony is through baby steps. Set up a space station in lunar orbit (we already know how to do those)and from there astronauts can make sorties down to the moons surface. Then NASA or whomever can start gradually setting up a base on the moon. They could try and mine the water beneath the moons surface, and perhaps later set up a teliscope. I think someone said earler that there are a few resources on the moon that could be mined, but yeah you could do quite a bit with a lunar colony. I think someone said that the ESA would work with NASA on the lunar colony, which is a good to hear- the more nations you can get on the lunar project the better, it means more money and more talent going into the project.

I think a lunar colony would have more practical benifit than having the prestige of getting a man to Mars. If NASA decides to invest its resources in the lunar colony the Chinese will probably go to Mars. They are the kind of nation that would do that.

It seems like you're skipping a lot of necessary and overwhelming logistics.
Putting a telescope on the dark side of the moon is redundant when it can just as well be put into Earth's orbit. There's a reason the most powerful telescopes are on the surface, though.
A space station in lunar orbit would also be somewhat redundant. The reason Earth has a space station is because Earth has a powerful gravity well. The amount of force required to reach orbit from Earth's surface is over 20x that of leaving the moon's. Those aside...
The amount of structural and economic support required to start a mining operation on the moon would be immense (if it's even useful to do so). Any ores would have to be used on the moon as well, and that just escalates the required support. Think about all the resources that that would cost Earth to get all those materials into space and safely to the moon.
In my opinion, there's nothing useful on the moon to warrant colonizing it. If it's decided that we will, then it will be because of merit first, and obscure research second. If you're worried we'll run out of room for expansion on Earth, the oceans would probably be easier to colonize in the long run. We need to create a much larger foothold in Earth's orbit before we think about moving into any other celestial bodies, along with a much more efficient means to reach orbit from Earth's surface (space elevators and such).

Alright let me explain better. When i said water mining i did not mean on an industrial scale (not for another 80-150 years) i meant on a small-research based scale. I would propose that the first step would be to put space station on the Moons orbit. Then, in about 5-10 years time say when those concerned can save up the necessary money, we then start thinking of shuttiling material from Earth to the lunar space station to constuct a base camp on the moon. The material would then be transported down onto the moons surface (this final part should not be too hard considering the moons gravity) and assembled by astronauts. So the purpose of the lunar space station is to serve as a way-station between Earth and the Moon. This would not be a colony, this would be more a research lab where they would be able try and drill water from beneath the moons surface and locating any potentially useful raw materials. The dark side of the moon would be an ideal place to locate a teliscope because their is a lack of light from the sun there to interfere with looking into deep space. You would simpily be able to see more on the dark side of the Moon than in Earths orbit. One may want to leave the teliscope until after the Moon base has been established, or combine the two so to make the base more rewarding in terms of scientific knowledge. However, you may have radio commication issues on the dark side of the Moon.

The hardest parts would be building the space station in the moons orbit and transporing the materials to make the moon base from Earth to the the space station. Which i why i would leave a substanial time gap to allow time to save up on the money.

 

[Low Key]

And you got me wrong for goverment 25 billion $ is small money for me hell 1&#0128 means a lot, but you are right I don't know the value of dollar as I use &#0128 in my country=).

$25 billion is still a lot in terms of the government. That kind of money can pay for all kinds of stuff. And guess what. It comes out of my paycheck, so I expect it to be used properly and efficiently, not frivolously on pet projects. Maybe your country can start a space program or you can take up collections and give it to NASA. I already pay enough in taxes.

compare that money to the military budget and then $25 billion is chump change

Umm...America is target #1 for anyone who hates the western world. Maybe if there weren't so many people who want to come and blow shit up for their own selfish reasons, we wouldn't need to spend so much on defense. Keeping citizens safe = $600 billion. Go talk to Russia or China if you want to see more space exploration. They might send a rocket up that will fall apart half way there, but at least they'll send one.