Should the Government keep funding NASA or They should stop?

Answer 1

I think the government should continue to fund NASA. As long as they hold NASA accountable for developing there own revenue base. The government has spent too many years giving them money and getting very little in return that was of any value to normal citizens. All government supported agencies should be supported only if they are of some value to the taxpayer who's ultimately paying for all this.

Answer 2

It's in the national interest to keep NASA going, not only for scientific reasons, but for future potential. There is a threshold of funding required for development in space before we can significantly start reaping the benefits, and that is the role of federal funding of NASA. Like fusion power, the day will come when it be commercially self-sustaining, but, until then, startup funding is needed. There are vast resources already known and some even mapped in the local solar system, so that the day may come when we will no longer depend so much on Earth for these resources, and maybe in the future we it will be feasible to set aside Earth as a park. Conservation measures on Earth alone will never be able to achieve this, but space exploration and development can. For the sake of Earth, we need NASA.

Answer 3

I think we need NASA, something to test some of our dreams.Plus funding some basic research.As far as fixing social problems are we really going to feed all the poor or provide housing to everyone or health care?Maybe we could take the NASA money and build a new bridge in Alaska

Answer 4

JZ - how do you think global warming was discovered and confirmed??? Answer - satelliites launched by....NASA

To say we get nothing back from NASA couldn't be further from the truth. NASA maintains an Office of Technology Transfer which shares NASA development with private industry at NO COST. Lasers, aircraft navigation systems, software and even heart pumps are but a few develolpments that have their roots in NASA research.

NASA's total yearly budget isn't even as big as the cost overrun of the useless NMD project. How about we start there with cuts?

Answer 5

the considerable reason there replaced into plenty investment interior the 50's and 60's replaced into because of area race, the place the real purpose replaced into to overcome the U.S. to the moon, quite than actual medical challenge. regrettably, given the super debt the U. S. is at the instant in, there isn't a lot of money around on the 2nd. That reported, they spend extra money on the conflict in Iraq each month than NASA gets in a three hundred and sixty 5 days...

Answer 6

Does any one realize how many inventions from NASA have made an impact on our daily life? There are countless.Reducing funding to NASA would be as stupid as Bush's decision to stop funding Stem Cell Research!

Answer 7

yes they should and let the private companies take over for now they have heeps better ideas and would really get into space travel and exploration man would be on mars in no time if nasa stopped messing with it all< their a waste of money they cut their own throats to stop private contract companies getting work so they can control the skies. gotta keep them spy satalites safe.

Answer 8

Space exploration is necessary if we are going to get enough people off the planet to establish a viable breeding population before some disaster destroys Earth. This must be accomplished before we reach a point where the necessary resources can no longer be allocated. If we keep all our eggs in one basket (Earth) we will doom Humanity.

Answer 9

What the hell? NASA is a government agency, they can't -stop- funding it without disolving it entirely.

Answer 10

Ok guys. I am writing a research paper on the controversial issues about this. The Pros and Cons of NASA.... i could not take sides on this subject because of its controversial word. So i am supporting and not supporting both sides... Could anyone give me a hand or help me out a lil?

Very much appreciated...