After all, they are our future....
2006-07-10 09:23:58 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
yep, someday... the sun will (WILL) explode; and if we are here, we will explode too.
2006-07-10 09:28:23 · answer #1 · answered by a_muse@prodigy.net 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Short answer. Yes.
The current allocation of money within the US budget is that NASA receives about 16.2 billion dollars (as of last year). Welfare currently receives 3 times that amount (about 45 billion)
Even though NASA is intended to be pure science (science that is done simply for the pursuit of knowledge) it still manages to create large returns on investment (it's been reported as 3:1 and as high as 9:1 per dollar - But let me remind you that is NOT NASA's agenda, merely a perk).
NASA is seen mostly for it's manned flight program and the occasional blurb on probes. However NASA has programs in nearly every facet of science (biology, astronomy, materials, chemisty, meterology, physics, electronics, software, etc...) Most of the projects are done simply because they are either too costly for private companies to risk, or simply because it's pure science they may or may not have a pay-off in the immediate future.
A recent example is the Gravity Probe B, which was used to test some theories of Einstein concerning "frame dragging", which is an unusual aspect of time-space warping. The test involved using some spheres that were the most perfect ever made (Within 40 atoms of a perfect sphere). The short term gain is that the information won't be applied to any profit. The long term gain is further understanding the high end physics and math that will enable the super sciences that change our future, such as Quantum physics.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of bureacracy and missappropriation that happens, and the new directive of sending people to the moon and mars will certainly scrub or delay many of the sciences objectives (because the moon and mars missions will absorb the budget), it's still one of the few agency's in the US that is allowed to do pure research. Taking it away would kill scientific progression and potentially have the US fall off the science leading-edge world wide.
Another note: NASA was using 4% of the Gross National Product (GNP) in the Apollo era. It now uses only 0.167% of the GNP and does a whole lot more.
If you'd like more examples of what benefits come out of NASA as applied to any field of science, let me know and I'll look it up.
2006-07-10 16:38:42 · answer #2 · answered by Doob_age 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Space exploration should receive more funding. NASA in particular, though, may or may not be the best place to put that money. However, if you are talking of tax dollars, then NASA is currently the only game in town. Personally, I would rather the money be spent on tax cuts for privately-owned space exploration and advocation organizations.
This does *not* mean to cut funds to NASA altogether, since a huge portion of their work is in doing things that no private organization would be able to undertake (due either to scope or no short-term return on investment), i.e. the "pure science" aspect. But if more were to be spent, then it should be divided somehow between NASA and the suggested tax benefits to encourge more private endeavors.
2006-07-10 16:40:59 · answer #3 · answered by stellarfirefly 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe.
NASA is NOT our future.
Space IS our future.
NASA may not be the best organization to continue leading the way forward into space. There are other space agencies in the world. And there are private companies. I think we are at the dawn of the age of private space travel, with NASA becoming increasingly less important as time goes on, until it will be like the FAA, overseeing private space travel instead of doing it themselves.
2006-07-10 16:34:06 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever been to a NASA office? I have been to several and I see the typical gov't clockwatchers. Can't start work until it's the hour on the dot. Lunch and quitting time same thing. Have you ever tried to contact various depts. at NASA. You get the bureaucratic runaround and never get answers or help. NASA shouldn't get any more money until they clean house.
2006-07-10 16:27:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because space exploration and the eventual colonization of space is vital to the future of humankind. They should receive much more funding than they receive today.
2006-07-10 16:28:01 · answer #6 · answered by dropkick_murphy9 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no. Why should we give millions or even billions of dollars just for them to send a probe to the other planets and seeing that they messup or the probe just doesnt work. You know how much of a waste that is!? The more fundings they get the more bankrupt our world is. And how are they our future? They just send probes to mars thats it. Just to find out that the atmosphere is mostly of carbon. the ground is rust. I mean c'mon!!! No way my answer is no!
2006-07-10 16:31:00 · answer #7 · answered by bittykittietwinklepie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-07-10 16:26:47 · answer #8 · answered by Judas Rabbi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure....why not. Lets let them spend another 6 billion dollars on a satellite and figure up the fuel using the wrong measurement.
2006-07-10 16:28:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. And dump the shuttle in favor of moon colonization and Mars exploration.
2006-07-10 17:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. October 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they are our future. There are plenty of things here in earth that we can do to preserve our planet so that it is here for all the generations to come. I honestly think that space exploration is a waste of time and money.
2006-07-10 16:27:40 · answer #11 · answered by redpeach_mi 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋