see here). I would love nothing more than to purge these ridiculous articles from our beloved internet, as they're written to generate page views instead of accurately communicating NASA's plans or operations.
---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 09:12 AM ----------
NASA investigated the possibility of "Space Shuttle 2.0" repeatedly over the years, from more advanced orbiters and launch vehicles themselves to futuristic reusable single-stage-to-orbit variants. They're not only way too expensive at this point in time, but also not feasible vehicles for the goals NASA has been assigned, which is why the concepts were shelved. You can deliver larger payloads to Earth orbit (and beyond) more safely and for far less money with rockets than with exotic spaceplane concepts.
I know people tend to want something more exotic and futuristic, but what you're going to get (for now) is this:
---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 09:16 AM ----------
Absolutely, more scientific research and less welfare. This chart is appalling:
Money to spare for science? Nah, we're short on that. Money to spare for people to not work? Plenty to go around!
1,500,000,000,000 Pentagon spending
It would take 6 months of defense spending to match the entire NASA budget since it's formation.
I think before we start throwing money at NASA so we can travel into space better, we should fix some of our problems here on Earth.
Most people don't realize the amount of problems on earth we have fixed with NASA discoveries/technology. Enlighten yourself!I think before we start throwing money at NASA so we can travel into space better, we should fix some of our problems here on Earth.
personally... I think all of the countries of the world should put money into NASA, or a space agency with all of the worlds powers...well, a lot more than they do. that way, the resources and money would be amazing. seriously, it's not like the US is going to be able to expand into space all by themselves, however they're the only ones that seem to be taking it seriously compared to others.
i don't know if it's too early to be looking into the future like that or not, but at some point it's going to have to happen.. better sooner than later. we can't just sit around and think about ourselves, it's the future we have to think about and the answer isn't "let them worry about it".
we fix problems here on earth every day, this is just an excuse to not do something. besides, this is for advancement... not fixing.I think before we start throwing money at NASA so we can travel into space better, we should fix some of our problems here on Earth.
The organisation should be renamed to the ''earth space organisation'' or something and include other nations as opposed to ''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''. because as of today, no other country's space program can do anything significant that NASA cannot. Adding revenue from the rest of the world, even only NATO members to begin with, we could see a significant improvement in space related science.
Sooner rather than later, the US simply cannot keep a steady flow of money flowing into NASA with little or no return for much longer. NASA's 2012 budget was at about 17.8 Billion dollars. In comparison worlds 15th largest Defense budget (Turkey) is at 17.9 Billion USD. NATO estimate 2011 expenditure was at almost 1040 Billion USD, 3% of the combined GDP of the 28 member states. More than 50% of the worlds total military spending. NASAs budget is 1.7% of that, 16.9 USD per NATO citizen.
Last edited by MMKing; 2013-01-19 at 10:03 PM.
The argument ''Spend the money fixing earth problems instead'' is an invalid one, and here is why.
Throwing money at NASA IS solving earth problems. Allot of the science behind space exploration are extremely handy down here at earth. Just read some of these articles.
Granted, some of the projects solve very few issues on Earth, some of them are first world problems, very few 3rd world problems.
well nasa should hire more intelligent people first i say . like y send super scientific instrument wen they can only send 32 kbps to mars . i would think that they would of sent relays in space to get that speed up by now ? than we may think of giving them more money lol
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2004/03/62409 (More info on how the data is transferred)
not reading all this thread, but it should have more funding. if i remember rightly every $1 spent on nasa has a $5 return, or something a long those lines.plus, science!
Need new signature ideas