Should NASA have a higher budget?

[Palmatum]

Absolutely. But then again, so should every other space agency. Pushing the boundaries benefits everyone in the end.

[Sayl]

not at all, in fact i have both a cousin and an uncle employed by nasa, however budgets are rarely brought up by them.
but surely you are not ignorant of the entire countries budges woes at the moment either. dont you think that came into my reasoning? my entire post was hardly 'glib'

That you have relatives employed by the agency doesn't show that you (or they) are familiar with the appropriations process. Ever watch a NASA budget hearing? They do ask for funding increases; the act of asking doesn't mean they actually receive them. If anything, the administrator is frequently raked over the coals just for trying to secure the bare minimum required to accomplish what they're assigned. The process is mired in political wrangling.

Your earlier post didn't even scratch the surface, and that's what prompted my response (which I stand by).

[Tinykong]

Not without better financial control. A relative of mine works for NASA making about $180k a year, and spends easily 5-6 hours per day on facebook playing games.

[Deleted]

Not only Nasa, every of those groups who are scientific purpose.

Money for war ? Money for weapons ? Money for people and science, thats what should be first place.

[Herecius]

Yes, yes and yes, NASA needs a way higher budget, right now it is 1 penny on a tax dollar, which is not enough in my opinion, for a scientific institution like NASA to keep advancing us humans into the future.

Linking some Neil deGrasse Tyson, it's very relevant.

I could go on and keep linking videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson, but I'm pretty certain mods wouldn't like me to spam vids in this thread. But, he's a great orator and is a scientist that is trying to get involved politically to get us off our asses and back to scientific advancement like it was the heyday of the Apollo Missions. (I would recommend checking all his videos out though, they're great)

To people who don't want NASA to get more funding...I just don't understand that, what NASA does, benefits the entire human race as a whole, and brings you neat technological goodies in addition.

As dirty and ugly as politics is, I think Tyson is doing a great thing, getting involved with politics as he is, and that politics could only benefit from having more scientists actually involved in the political process, as opposed to it being almost 100% lawyers.

[Deleted]

Yes and No. Yes for US budgeting, but no for, there should be an entirely international project which shouldn't simply have a budget it's spending should be unlimited. Money doesn't exist, habitable planets do. We need to spread and quickly before conflicting ideologies on our own planet tear us apart.

[Deleted]

Yes, they should, you can cut from military. Maybe retire some nukes, then you won't need to pay maintenance for them anymore.

[Adam Jensen]

You sci-fi nerds are amusing. Do you actually think all we have for space travel is the same stuff from the 1980s? Find it hard to believe. Your defense spending is going towards this stuff, but its confidential because it can be used as a weapon. Its a joke to think we need to waste money on a failed program.

Do you wear scratch resistant glasses? Do you know anyone with an artificial limb? Have you ever had invisible bracers to fix your teeth and avoid ridicule? Have you ever flown an aircraft that didn't (thankfully) ice up in flight?

NASA is neither a failed program nor a useless one. It's spinoff technologies are beneficial to mankind as are it's technologies based on astronomical research.

Or do you want to be trapped on this planet on the inevitable day the comet/asteroid/other catastrophe occurs? Our time on this planet is limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 05:49 PM ----------

Do I WANT them to? Yes.

DO I THINK they should? Not really.

It would be great if they did get a higher budget and technology advanced faster, but we need to fix current issues first. Although i'm not american, I think the US government should focus on fixing the economey first.

Kinda sick of people bringing this up and not reading the thread.

NASA's budget is a fraction of a penny to every tax dollar. Meanwhile, it's ROI is something like 8 times what was spent. Basically, they make money, rather than drain it.

[Sayl]

Scroesec is also very correct; a budget increase needs to come with a complete revamp of how space and defense contracting operates.

It also needs to be accompanied by cohesive, long-term space policy -- one that won't get thrown out the window because of presidential transitions and political shenanigans. NASA hasn't been provided one in a long time, and that's a continuing political failure which (too frequently) gets neglected.

NASA's most recent to-do list included this:

The Administrator of NASA shall:
• Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

On the surface, it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but its status is currently being questioned. Over at the NRC, the Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction published this finding (among others) late last year:

During the course of the study, the committee heard that more than 2 years after the President announced the interim goal of sending humans to an asteroid by 2025 there has been little effort to initiate such a mission. There are still no good asteroid targets for such a mission, a necessary prerequisite for determining mission length and details such as the astronauts’ exposure to radiation and the consumables required. There is also no indication that NASA is undertaking the sort of comprehensive search necessary to identify asteroid targets. In addition, no hardware, such as a habitation module, is under development. The committee also heard from NASA officials that an asteroid mission is more difficult to accomplish and has less utility for developing equipment and operations for an eventual Mars landing mission than they initially believed. For example, unlike a lunar surface mission, an asteroid mission does not result in the development of equipment or operations necessary for eventual Mars missions. While the committee did not undertake a technical assessment of the feasibility of an asteroid mission, it was informed by several briefers and sources that the current planned asteroid mission has significant shortcomings. Despite isolated pockets of support for a human asteroid mission, the committee did not detect broad support for an asteroid mission inside NASA, in the nation as a whole, or from the international community.

Finding: The committee has seen little evidence that the current stated interim goal for NASA’s human spaceflight program—namely, to visit an asteroid by 2025—has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by NASA’s own workforce, by the nation as a whole, or by the international community. Although asteroids remain important subjects for both U.S. and international robotic exploration and study, on the international front there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission. This lack of national and international consensus on the asteroid-first mission scenario undermines NASA’s ability to establish a comprehensive, consistent strategic direction that can guide program planning and budget allocation. The current program has significant shortcomings in the pursuit of the stated goal of the asteroid mission. There has been a long-standing general agreement that a human mission to Mars should be the long-term goal of the human spaceflight program, even though a near-term commitment to such a program is still pending.

In other words, the administration needs to get its shit together and do a policy rewrite, the sooner the better.

One or two of NASA's deputy administrators has stated that we should expect to see new manned lunar missions (not landings, necessarily), but we've not seen any official presentations yet, only contractors' proposals (like Boeing's). NASA and ESA cooperate well, so I was pleased by the Orion news... but that doesn't fill in all the remaining blanks on what we should expect to see. They have something in mind for EML-2, it would be nice to know all the details.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

All I'm going to say is don't cut Military 100% it still needs some. As for Nasa? I always thought it was about space and all that. I don't want to get off Earth. I want to live on it not move off the planet. Now unless Nasa does way more then that well call me intrequed. I'd like to know what else they do since my ignorance prevents me from making the best opinion possible.

[Deleted]

United States NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) $17,700 million (2012)
ESA (European Space Agency) $5,430 million (2011)
Russia ROSCOSMOS (Russian Federal Space Agency) $3,800 million (2011)
France CNES (French Space Agency) $2,822 million (2010)
Japan JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) $2,460 million
Germany DLR (German Aerospace Center) $2,000 million
India ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) $1,320 million
China CNSA (China National Space Administration) $1,300 million
Italy ASI (Italian Space Agency) $1,000 million
Iran ISA (Iranian Space Agency) $500 million
United Kingdom UKSA (UK Space Agency) $414 million
Brazil AEB (Brazilian Space Agency) $343 million
Canada CSA (Canadian Space Agency) $300 million
South Korea KARI (Korea Aerospace Research Institute) $300 million
Ukraine NSAU (National Space Agency of Ukraine) $250 million
Belgium BELSPO (Belgian Federal Office for Science Policy) $170 million
Argentina CONAE (Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales) $148 million
Spain INTA (Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial) $135 million
Sweden SNSB (Swedish National Space Board) $100 million
Pakistan SUPARCO (Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission) $82 million
Netherlands SRON (Netherlands Institute for Space Research) $26 million
Switzerland SSO (Swiss Space Office) $10 million
Mexico AEM (Mexican Space Agency) $8.34 million

World All space agencies (Total of listed budgets) $40,618.34 million

I dream of a World Space Agency, where we/they all work for a common goal.

[Dazzy]

No, NASA should have NO budget.

If NASA wants to explore outer space, let them do it as a private company, with funds they raised or earned themselves.

There is no logical reason for us to be paying for space exploration. Space exploration and travel is not crucial to the survival of mankind, you watch too many movies.

I keep seeing people talk about all the innovations and technological advances, yet as I do my research I find that every single one of them (100% for you non readers) were being worked on by the private sector, NOT sucking up our money that could be much better used elsewhere. In most cases the private companies were ahead on the research and implementation side, the few others they were equal.

[Deleted]

Yes, a thousand times yes. They work for the benefit of mankind, their work is amazing and we need to see more of it.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Or do you want to be trapped on this planet on the inevitable day the comet/asteroid/other catastrophe occurs? Our time on this planet is limited.

Or we could find ways to prevent such at thing instead of getting off the planet.

[Garnier Fructis]

Or we could find ways to prevent such at thing instead of getting off the planet.

Good luck preventing the Sun from exploding.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Good luck preventing the Sun from exploding.

If that even happens. Even then I'll be dead.

[Garnier Fructis]

If that even happens.

Are you implying that somehow the Sun might be eternal? That notion breaks conservation of energy.

[semaphore]

If that even happens

It's not questionable.

Even then I'll be dead.

Let's not care about the future of our species - the sort of mentality that explains so much of our current predicament.

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 01:27 AM ----------

There is no logical reason for us to be paying for space exploration. Space exploration and travel is not crucial to the survival of mankind, you watch too many movies.

Roads and bridges are not crucial to the survival of mankind. Therefore there is no logical reason for the government to build roads and bridges. You watch too many movies.

Discarding the massive returns on investment NASA is, using the excuse that it's not "crucial", is extremely ignorant and hypocritical. You have no problem accepting government funding in everything else that's not "crucial".

[TheOne]

I could go on and keep linking videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Here's a podcast from the Joe Rogan Experience with Neil. Good stuff here. I could listen to these guys for days.

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

[Wells]

I think the tertiary scientific benefit of space research gets over looked a lot.