Just as a FYI , renewable energy without research NASA has done 30-40 year ago would still be in its infancy. NASA has done more for solar energy than any other industry in the world.
Mars Mission: $2.5 billion - Worth It Given Alternatives?
- Thread starter than_west
- Start date
So genius, how much cash should we MANDATE that NASA takes from every US citizen whether they like it or not?
You're changing the subject with this licensing shit. We're talking about Mars here.
You never answered the questions. Why the hard on for NASA? Do you support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, soon to be Iran and, let's not forget, the war on drugs? I bet your right wing ass just loves that the US is bombing skinnies in the desert, amirite? Do you support the bank bailouts too? There are so many other places to look for that so called stolen money, in vastly greater quantities, than space exploration which at the end of the day is a huge benefit to everyone.
Off-topic answers to your off-topic questions:
I don't support the wars or the war on drugs either
I don't support the bank bailouts
So you're saying that because X is worse, we should MANDATE Y? There are an infinite number of other uses of cash and they should be left for free thinking people to decide.
Do you understand that we're talking about a MANDATE here?
It amazes me that idiots continuously fall for this scam.
привет;1829743 said:
Yeah, none of those things have been advanced by this mission :eek7:
привет;1829743 said:
That's simply wrong. China has already stated it wants to send men to the moon and has plans for a space station of its own. Japan has a robust space program with several innovations.
привет;1829743 said:
Riiight, the US being the ONLY country with ambitions in space
That's why there are 16 different countries responsible for the International Space Station, with astronauts from 14 different countries having visited it. That's why 12 different countries participated in the Curiosity rover, each having paid for and developed portions of the technology onboard. That's why there are literally dozens of countries around the world with space programs, List of space agencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and many more have plans to develop one.
One of the problems with NASA expenditures is that we don't know what we're getting for our money. $100 spent to fund a Mars project is $100 that is no longer available to be spent toward other ends. How do we know whether the results we have seen can be economically justified? There is no price mechanism. There is no system of profit or loss that guides producers' decisions.
That's a huge problem because it eliminates the one litmus test that can tell us where to allocate our capital. Without that litmus test, we're guessing and hoping. Nothing more. In that way, NASA expenditures are not an investment. Instead, they are akin to a lottery ticket.
Consider some of the products many of us enjoy. From iPhones, cars, and guitars to calculators, computers, and condoms, these products exist because profits inform producers that such items are desired. Those profits translate into more capital, which can then be allocated to additional items people want. That's how the economy grows. That's how we get richer.
Conversely, losses inform producers they've made the wrong decisions; they have allocated their capital poorly; they have produced items at a cost that consumers are unwilling to bear.
With NASA expenditures, we have nothing to guide these decisions. We throw $100 billion of capital down a hole and hope something comes out the other end. Of the advancements we've seen, how can we know the "investment" was justified? Again, there is no price mechanism. There is no system of profit or loss that guides producers' decisions.
And we wonder why we're going bankrupt?
That's a huge problem because it eliminates the one litmus test that can tell us where to allocate our capital. Without that litmus test, we're guessing and hoping. Nothing more. In that way, NASA expenditures are not an investment. Instead, they are akin to a lottery ticket.
Consider some of the products many of us enjoy. From iPhones, cars, and guitars to calculators, computers, and condoms, these products exist because profits inform producers that such items are desired. Those profits translate into more capital, which can then be allocated to additional items people want. That's how the economy grows. That's how we get richer.
Conversely, losses inform producers they've made the wrong decisions; they have allocated their capital poorly; they have produced items at a cost that consumers are unwilling to bear.
With NASA expenditures, we have nothing to guide these decisions. We throw $100 billion of capital down a hole and hope something comes out the other end. Of the advancements we've seen, how can we know the "investment" was justified? Again, there is no price mechanism. There is no system of profit or loss that guides producers' decisions.
And we wonder why we're going bankrupt?
I noticed you're from Spain. How did that "free thinking" thing work out for Spain's economy? LOL
You support a tyranny of the majority by idiots like yourself?
Excepting for Jake's fine analysis, there's a whole lot of Durr up in Hurr.
The greater wrong here, as it was in the 1960s, is the taxation to pay for this program.
Commercial ventures like the one about to mine asteroids can and will get us to Mars and beyond given time... But right now your government wants to get there ahead of other governments and squeezes you a bit harder for it so the first flag put on mars won't be Chinese.
...Which we all know will be so anyway. The red chinese all but own the red planet. We've lost this one boys... But there's always Titan. :thumbsup:
Regardless, I voted "Yes" in the poll because if I've got to be taxed, I'd far rather my money be used on the space program than on bombing innocent people.
The greater wrong here, as it was in the 1960s, is the taxation to pay for this program.
Commercial ventures like the one about to mine asteroids can and will get us to Mars and beyond given time... But right now your government wants to get there ahead of other governments and squeezes you a bit harder for it so the first flag put on mars won't be Chinese.
...Which we all know will be so anyway. The red chinese all but own the red planet. We've lost this one boys... But there's always Titan. :thumbsup:
Regardless, I voted "Yes" in the poll because if I've got to be taxed, I'd far rather my money be used on the space program than on bombing innocent people.
I interpreted "compared to alternative uses of cash" as comparing it to the other ways in which government normally uses cash. If you're trying to make a point about forced taxation then why would you single out something that represents about 6 hours of federal spending?
Reminds me of this :
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkU2SvG-62Y]Ron Paul: Making fun of fiscal conservatives cutting NPR funding! - YouTube[/ame]
1. I don't think that here we'd have even a person to give an alternative.
2. 2.5$ billion invested in the highest research a man can conceive.
3. 2.5$ billion paid to the best aerospace companies of the world that have hired the best engineers.
4. We'll see the outcome on our life in the next years with new materials.
2. 2.5$ billion invested in the highest research a man can conceive.
3. 2.5$ billion paid to the best aerospace companies of the world that have hired the best engineers.
4. We'll see the outcome on our life in the next years with new materials.
For the 100 billion dollars you mention wasting, that's more than 6 years of nasa funding.
You can calculate how much we've spent on nasa, and if you feel like taking the time you can research all 1750+ innovations created by that funding and their economic value to society.
You wouldn't have a lot of technology used in products we use for enjoyment, health, and safety, which are licensed by private companies, without the groundwork done by non profit research.
0.52% of our yearly gov budget is less than we'll print this year. Boohoo. I don't support a lot of shit we spend money on. What can I do, cry about it and call people names?
Funding leading scientists, engineers, etc is money well spent. You disagree. Oh well. City building inspectors make six figures here in Seattle. In Bellevue WA they drive Acura SUV's. That's wasteful, exploring the boundaries of our existence for 0.5% of our budget is not.
Maybe you should have added the option stating that the government gives back your money. I would have voted for that instead. I think most people here would have voted for getting their money back or never handing it over in the first place if the question was framed that way.
Unfortunately, the government isn't going to give back your money, and if they aren't using it on NASA it will probably go to a much shittier cause. Like it or not we all live under the tyranny of the majority, please enlighten me as to how you're going to escape that in this day and age? Are you going to try teaching the masses one by one that government = theft while they watch American Idol?
This is a key point and thank you for bringing it up. You're probably right but if I added the option of giving your cash back it would have been a leading poll. I made the poll more open ended and fair.
OTHER USES INCLUDES HAVING THE CASH BACK YOURSELF. That goes without saying.
It appears like most people here that voted yes are too stupid to think of this option themselves.
If you feel like that spend your own money. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't rob me (and everyone else) to finance your dreams. Thanks.