Who thinks that it's crap that NASA wastes BILLIONS on space, when there are poor coutries that need help?

Answer 1

I do, they aren't accomplishing **** up there anyways.

They have no business wasting that kind of money when we're in trouble down here.

With that kind of cash they could make this planet a lot better or help a lot of hungry, poor, and homeless people.

Answer 2

NASA isn't widely used for being thrifty. The 7 passenger Orion tablet has already fee 320 situations as lots because of the fact the 7 passenger SpaceX Dragon tablet has and the shipment version of the Dragon has already berthed on the ISS together as the Orion would not have a launch rocket. NASA is widely used for breaking new floor, it killed the Delta Clipper for the project famous individual because of the fact the project famous individual did no longer use off the shelf factors yet particularly it tries out the aerospike engine and a flat tension tank that's what cracked on them, killing the undertaking, the Delta Clipper used off the shelf engines and rancid the shelf tension tanks, certainly each little thing became off the shelf. interest is easily floor breaking in that that's one among those enormous rover able to so lots greater tests and overlaying lots greater variety plus it tried a sparkling and extremely complicated transport technique. And that's fortunate that they did no longer make the errors of mistaking metres for ft as that they had carried out on the 1999 climate Orbiter yet there is little reason to suspect that it became an financial undertaking, time will tell if it became properly spent yet thrifty? that's NASA...

Answer 3

I agree. Who needs microwave ovens or velcro or any of the other inventions or creations that have come about because of space exploration.

But let's not stop with NASA. How many TRILLIONS of dollars are spent on professional sports, the Olympics, and the United Nations that could be better spent on poor countries? If all of those people who travel to the Olympics and spend money on souvenirs, tickets, and hotels only gave that money to poor countries...well, they'd still probably be poor countries. We've poured Billions of dollars into corrupt governments and unstable regions and have done nothing but make a few greedy people rich: Palestine, Haiti, and Saddam's Iraq come immediately to mind.

Money in and of itself is not a cure-all for poverty. We've spent over $40 TRILLION in the U.S. alone on welfare since the 1960's. And we still have poverty here (except you never hear about it when there's a Democratic president for some reason...), and we're the richest nation on earth. How will throwing money at other countries help them? Won't that just lead to a financial 'quagmire' that we're stuck in?

Answer 4

That would depend, most of their budget is for the Department of Offense. Which then spends a couple thousand times as much out of the not-really-available
public funds to go make war on the poor countries.

Then there are the goodies like for instance communications satellites, designing, launching and maintaining them, which allows amongst other things, Yahoo!Answers and the rest of the Internet.

Other satellites which monitor the weather and geologic disturbances, like hurricanes, volcanoes, Tsunamis and other disasters which are particularly bad for the poor countries, as well as for the rich countries.

And satellites which scan the world for things like available groundwater, which is essential to stuff like farming, which I understand is a big thing to poor people in poor countries, and a lot better for the local economies than parking sweat-shops making cheap goods for Wal-Mart and Overstock.com to sell, and paying the local people 50 cents a day.

Maybe if you and I and a few million or even billion other people can convince the Big Bosses to actually concentrate on that type of spending and just realize that we have enough weapons and don't need any more.

And that it costs more money than we will ever be able to repay to take over a country or three, (Our president said he had over 60 nations scheduled for Regime Change in the summer of '02)

Answer 5

I think it's crap that The Goverment wastes money on invading space and invading other countries and then do a "study" on things related to the above or any other insane thing they can think of to do studies on when we have 1000's of homeless people right here in America that could use the money to eat on for 1 year at least!! They do a study on why the red dye in food makes meat stay red???? Then they do another study to see if the red dye in meat will make people sick and then study that to see if it was the red dye or just the meat!? Then they break that down into 20 smaller studies that are even more insane than the first one!! Give me a break Puh-leeeeeez!!

Answer 6

No, I do not think it's a waste. Does waste occur within NASA, sure, there are some financial mistakes, but the overall return on investment is pretty good.

Not to dispute a previous answer, but NASA's budget for '07 is $16.2 Billion. However, that money doesn't just cover manned spaceflight, it covers JPL's missions, contributes to weather satellites, communication satellites, science satellites, health studies on Earth in nearly every form of biology (creating new medicines), materials science (creating new materials to build with or design new tools, like computers), physics studies - enabling us to understand how to build new tools and computers that transform our society, agriculture studies, city planning studies, archeological studies, geology, volcanology, oceanography...

All of those disciplines help make life better here on Earth, and actually help the poor (better agriculture makes food cheaper, better medicine makes medicine cheaper and more capable of healing), environmental (weather, pollution, city planning) all help to protect us.

By comparison, the Welfare budget is $45 billion, nearly 3 times that of NASA. While it does help some people to become middle class, it generally feeds the same people year after year and actually rewards them for having more children, being unmarried, drug addicted, etc... Is Welfare needed, sure, but I think it's getting a pretty good share.

Now let's look at Military spending. The Military gets far more than any other institution by far. $450 Billion per year. And I've seen figures as high as $720 Billion. The Iraq war, not the Afghanistan war that was our response to Terrorism, but the extend Iraq war has cost us over $300 billion alone. Operating costs are between $6-$10 billion a MONTH. What's our return on investment there? So far it's looking like we've merely destablized a country which is now fostering more terrorists.

Am I glad that a bad dictator is gone (aka Saddam)? Sure, but if that's the case then there are at least 20 other countries (especially in Africa) that are killing MILLIONS of people right now and terrorizing the neighboring countries. Should we be going after them? How do we propose to pay for that, or have a military large enough?

However, if we develop technologies that the third world can afford (cheap energy, clean water, access to information) we can help those countries drastically and help end poverty.

The U.S. currently contributes Billions to the World Fund (an international bank designed to help those in need) as well as the WHO (World Health Organization). Can we do more? Yes, but destroying science progress is not the solution. Minimizing our involvement in overseas wars would save us billions. Improving domestic policies on immigration would help, solving the medical cost would help, educating people would help.

I hope my discussion was not offensive, and more informative than opinionated.

If you'd like to discuss it further, please feel free to write me via my profile.

Thanks!

Answer 7

no I do not!!!!! Many of the wonderful scientific advances, that have been made in my life time can be traced right back to NASA. As for the pore. That is A most difficult QUESTION. I know that throwing more tax dollars at it just takes money out of our pocket so that there are more pore people so that public employees can retire at 52 some with pensions that are higher than what they made working. What we knead is to stimulate world wide capitalism so that there will be good paying jobs for all. While keeping taxes low so people can live on what they earn

Answer 8

I'd say it depends. I mean there is some good to all the research that's being done. There could be another planet out there that has some form of live on it and it would be absolutely astonishing to find it. Don't you think? And don't think twice about doubting our government because I'm sure if they wanted to, all of us Americans could have a nice wealthy life without as much strain as we take now.

Answer 9

The 2007 NASA budget is only around 10 billion dollars. The Afghan and Iraq wars cost around 80 billion a year. The science and the dividend to private industry through new technologies from NASA greatly offsets the 10 billion. In order for our species to survive (according to people like Steven Hawkins) it is necessary to expand to other planets.

Of course we could just use the extra 10 billion on guns and bullets and kill in the name of religion, but I don't think that is an overall solution.

Think about this the medical knowledge, drugs, from space technology pays 1000 fold from our investment. Some of the private industry “spin-offs” from NASA technology is available on the following website. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

We should have a NASA budget of about 200 billion a year with awards to private industry like Burt Ratan’s spaceship one design.

P.S. Don't take anymore stupid pills tonight. I think you may overdose.

Answer 10

I agree that its a lot of money, but some of the same stuff you call crap helps them to discover the technology that makes it possible for you to ask this question on the Internet, and receive answers like this one. THINK ABOUT IT