The NASA Budget for 2008 is aprox 17.5 Billion Dollars and that does not included some special programs. Instead of researching for water on distant planets the same recourses could be used to clean up the water on our planet. Knowing that Saturn's rings are more dense than what was though seems to be more important than people dying from drinking contaminated water.
2007-05-23 07:18:59 · 7 answers · asked by Innocent 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
This is not about bashing, ending or cutting the budget of the space program but rather about redirecting it’s resources.
Also not a comparison of other wasteful projects the government is involved in such as the war.
2007-05-23 12:19:39 · update #1
I've heard the same arguement for over 30 years. As for resources, the only "same" resource is money. The idea that you can redirect space hardware to pollution is wishful thinking.
2007-05-23 07:23:57 · answer #1 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When will NASA bashers learn to do some basic maths? NASA's budget is LESS THAN 1% of the US Federal budget for 2008. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on the military this year, about 80 billion specifically for the construction of new weapons. Redirect some of THAT into humanitarian projects and leave science budgets alone. Just because you can't see what benefits the space program gives doesn't make it a waste of money.
2007-05-23 18:51:53 · answer #2 · answered by Jason T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why attack NASA???? Why not the Military budget! How about we double NASA's budget and take a world first by becoming the first nation to completely dissolve the military budget. Maybe this would show the world that we mean peace by getting rid of the military budget. Plus NASA's research in space has provided us with more products than what you are currently aware of. If it was not for NASA you wouldn't have the satellite communications that we have, you wouldn't be able to be warned ahead of time for severe weather, most medical science would be 40 years behind what it currently is. Certain plastics and other products would not have been invented yet. Not only that but it may be NASA that actually saves human kind when the rest of the money hungry politicians destroy this world with either polution or acts of war.
2007-05-23 15:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by viking165301 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think the 17 billion saved would be redirected to environmental issues, you have not learned from history. The "peace dividend", which was the large savings due to defense cuts after the end of the cold war, was just frittered away by the Government.
2007-05-23 15:27:35 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Much of the materials processing technology we have came from Nasa. They push the bleeding edge of science very hard, and you get a good bang for the bucks you put in there.
Why not give the dept of education 1 year off, and require kids to work in hard environmentally friendly manual labor. We could put the money into the environment. After a year we get hundreds of billions of money in the envt, and come up with a way to motivate a majority of teens to work hard in school. You cant teach the unwilling.
2007-05-23 14:27:24 · answer #5 · answered by Curly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what about that stupid military budget? If it were cut in half that would give every human on Earth 75 free dollars a year (500 billion dollars). (that wouldn't really happen, all the stupid rich people would just gobble it up)
2007-05-23 14:54:47 · answer #6 · answered by anonymous 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So um... why isn't this in the political section?
2007-05-23 14:41:22 · answer #7 · answered by Mike 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋