Nasa is a waste of funds!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
3% of GDP is WELL in the middle.

After all, it isn't like we spend the most on military spending as a percentage of GDP.

More like 4-4.5%

And yes, congratulations: you spend less than North Korea does.

[Velociryx]

And less than Iraq, and Saudi, and a healthy chunk of other nations.

We are pretty well middle of the road.

Of course, what makes it LOOK bigger is that our economy is several times bigger than most.

When you're cranking at 9Trillion or so GDP, and the guy you're in a p*ssing contest with is sitting at 2...is it much of a contest?

-=Vel=-

[DanS]

50% of the total budget, you call that a moderate amount?

50% of the discretionary federal budget, or 4% of the economy. Yes, I call that a moderate amount.

[Jack the Bodiless]

As has been previously mentioned, the USAF has a space budget comparable to NASA's.

So what have they done with that money? As much as NASA has achieved? I doubt it.

And, Rogan, I've noticed that you're often unsympathetic towards scientific research that's too far removed from your own field. Can you explain why finding the Higgs boson or string theory would benefit humanity, whereas investigating the geology of Mars will not? You can't do that effectively with robot probes that take ages to respond to commands from Earth (lightspeed lag) or have the onboard intelligence of an insect. You need geologists on the scene.

Besisdes, space exploration isn't just about research. It is also, ultimately, about colonization.

To those who dismiss the Moon and Mars as "lifeless balls of rock": check out the history of European attempts to colonize the Americas. Colony after colony failed. Vinland, Jamestown, the one left by Columbus, various others: for a long time, the only really successful ones were those funded by plundered gold. So should the Americas have been written off as an "uninhabitable" or "non-viable" continents?

[DanS]

So what have they done with that money? As much as NASA has achieved? I doubt it.

You will have ample opportunity to judge when Powell gives evidence on Iraq tomorrow.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Spy satellites. Probably put into orbit on NASA shuttles or on rockets using NASA technology (maybe even designed by NASA).

That's about it.

I don't think that matches NASA's record of achievement.

[DanS]

dp

[DanS]

Probably put into orbit on NASA shuttles or on rockets using NASA technology (maybe even designed by NASA)

Nope. Put on unmanned Air Force rockets and designed by the Air Force and others in the intelligence community.

[Jack the Bodiless]

The bigger ones were launched by NASA. There were shuttle flights with classified military cargoes.

[DanS]

Don't think shuttle has done anything military for a decade.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And, Rogan, I've noticed that you're often unsympathetic towards scientific research that's too far removed from your own field. Can you explain why finding the Higgs boson or string theory would benefit humanity, whereas investigating the geology of Mars will not? You can't do that effectively with robot probes that take ages to respond to commands from Earth (lightspeed lag) or have the onboard intelligence of an insect. You need geologists on the scene.

I think investigating the geology of Mars would be great. But there are two provisos.

First of all, that is not what we are doing - we are doing experiments on rats in freefall and such. Of course, things like weightlessness have to be researched before we could make a manned mission to Mars, but I really get the feeling that going to Mars is not what NASA is aiming for. Anyway, why not investigate the geology of the Moon first? If they were planning on going to Mars anytime soon, they would have been back to the moon by now. It is now 30 years since we were last there!

Secondly, there is the cost. As I said earlier, it is a matter of priorities. What is more important to you - studying the geology of Mars or finding a cure for cancer? I know which one I would pick.

Things like the Higgs boson and String Theory are important to research because they are fundamental physics. If we learn something new at a fundamental level there is a 'trickle down' to applied physics over time. For example, the quantum mechanics early last centuary looked pretty useless but now we see applications in quantum computing. Were the applications of electricity obvious when it was discovered?

If we were able to fully understand where mass comes from we might be able to supress its effects enough to travel at or near light-speed. For that matter, understanding string theory might eventually lead to the ability to make and control wormholes (Stargate anyone?). All the new applications coming out of heavy ion physics is because of the particle physics experiments done in the 60s and 70s.

And particle physics is actually not very expensive for what you get.

Besisdes, space exploration isn't just about research. It is also, ultimately, about colonization.

To those who dismiss the Moon and Mars as "lifeless balls of rock": check out the history of European attempts to colonize the Americas. Colony after colony failed. Vinland, Jamestown, the one left by Columbus, various others: for a long time, the only really successful ones were those funded by plundered gold. So should the Americas have been written off as an "uninhabitable" or "non-viable" continents?

It is really a completely different scale of exploration. Would you want to live on Mars? I very much doubt that we will get to Mars this centuary and I wouldn't expect colonisation for a few hundred years.

And if you want to do 'proper' space exploration (a la Star Trek) you won't get there with NASA. You will need some fundamentally new ideas in physics first.

[DanS]

And particle physics is actually not very expensive for what you get.

Superconducting Supercollider anyone?

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


It is really a completely different scale of exploration. Would you want to live on Mars? I very much doubt that we will get to Mars this centuary and I wouldn't expect colonisation for a few hundred years.

And if you want to do 'proper' space exploration (a la Star Trek) you won't get there with NASA. You will need some fundamentally new ideas in physics first.

You have been watching too much Star Trek, as this is the entire back history of the show. NASA gets us nowhere until some egghead invents warp drive.

The applied physics of NASA is much more valuable right now than some theoretical experiments that may or may not be valuable 50-100 years from now.

[Velociryx]

In a heartbeat, I'd wanna live on Mars!

And, I'd contend that it doesn't have to be an either-or proposition.

We've got the money to put good financial backing behind both (that'd be like saying: "Well, we can either fund health care, or the military this year....take your pick.") No! We can do both. Granted, we can't just give both unlimited funds, but if we handle it on an "manage by objective" basis, then we don't need to.

-=Vel=-

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by DanS
Don't think shuttle has done anything military for a decade.

The shuttle's military role has been scaled back, but they do play an important part in launching and repairing intelligence satellites. Shuttles also fly topography missions and the Air Force is working in conjunction with NASA to develop space based radar, of which the shuttle will definitely play a part.

I wouldn't say that the shuttle has no military mission today, but rather that existing technology gives the shuttle no practical military applications.