Lindsey Zanardi: "newborn babies" aren't good when the world can't afford to feed them.
Myriam Hetjonk: Federal budget for 2008: 2,900 billion dollars.Dept of Defense budget for 2008: 481.4 billion dollars, or 16.6% of the budget. NASA budget for 2008: 17.3 billion dollars, or 0.59% (that's less than 1 percent)If the money was not given to NASA, it does not go automatically towards feeding the poor, education, alternative energy research, or your other pet project. It goes into the war effort.NASA has pretty much the smallest budget of any gov't agency, and still manages to fund tens of thousands of professors, teachers, students, educators, scientists, doctors, researchers, engineers, and more every year....Show more
Rosalba Lingner: the sole purpose of nasa isn't to gain the country, but along their research etc they discover stuff/by-products of their goals that make life easier for the general public. It's only by doing their reserch that they open othe! r doors for techonlogy to progress.day-2-day by-products:memory foam matresssat navetc etc...Show more
Jacques Vaquera: Here are a few:Personal ComputersColorization of black and white movies"Sound Guard" record cleaner Solar powered calculatorsAluminized bags for snack food Weather satellitesHalogen lights for cars Sports domesMicrowave Ovens Pocket calculatorsPhone calls by satelliteLaser guided missiles"Mylar" balloons"Blue Blocker" sunglasses Digital watches and thermometers "DirecTV", "Dish Network", etc"Kevlar" for bullet proof vests "Mini Mag" flashlights Fiber optics for phone calls"Vortec" engines in GM cars "Ovation" guitars and helicopter bladesPacemaker batteries that last 20 years Compact Disks M R I medical sca! nnersElectronic ignition in automobiles ! Laser scanners in stores"Bulb Miser" devices for long life light bulbs Weather Maps on televisionJuice boxes for "Hawaiian Punch", etc "The Patch" medical deviceBreathing systems for firefighters "Flexon" eyeglasses and dental bracesCellular phones and beepersCable Television, H B O, Showtime, etc Sunglasses that block 99% of U. V. light Pens that write upside down and under water Anti corrosive paint for bridges, boats, Scratch resistant coatings on sunglasses & the Statue of LibertyFootball helmets for the NFLGPS Navigation SystemsThe Internet...Show more
Elvin Mannheimer: Thanks David D. You gave me a real answer!Only have of those things are important however, and while I'm thankful for them, they are mostly luxury/convenience items, excluding the medical t! hings of course. These things are great as long as there's an economy that can afford them. It is still my opinion that NASA is mostly a luxury that produces mostly luxuries. Until this world is no longer dependent on nonrenewable resources, NASA has to take a back seat to alternative fuel research, for in today's world, alternative fuel is a neccessity, not a luxury....Show more
Troy Staton: You are comparing apples and oranges. There are several things I would like to address. First, NASA is in the business exploration, not in the business of making money or improving peoples lives. If it were, it would be called the New Technologies Development Administration. (NTDA)Second, NASA doesn't cost that much. Just .08 percent of the Federal budget is spent on space exploration. That is a drop in the bucket. Third, there have been a myriad of technologies that have been directly derived from the space program what have direct benefits to billions of people on Earth (see li! nk below). Fourth, NASA didn't set out to discover these technologies, ! they were results of what NASA learned by exploring space. New technologies develop because of a need, rarely because of a mandate. Necessity is the mother of invention Fifth, the next time you use the internet, cell phone, microwave, see a smoke detector, use the breaks in your car or receive a MRI. Think about the space program. Think about how the space industry has contributed to the betterment of life on Earth. Would some of these technologies have been invented or improved without humans exploring space. Possibility, but space has forced us to think outside the box.Lastly, I believe alternative fuel and renewable energy do need to be pursued. For both national security and environmental reasons. I would like to point out that FY 2007 the Department of Energy requested 23.6 billion dollars for just that reason (see second link). The same year, NASA requested 16.8 billion (see third link). Bottom line, Stop picking on NASA for not developing alternative fuels. That's no! t their job. There are other agencies with more money who should be the object of your scorn. ...Show more
Roselee Mczeal: if you had to choose between funding alternative fuel research or funding NASA, what whould you choose?
Antone Bual: I appreciate your question. It is so often hard to find intelligent questions. Anyway, there are already several good points posted as to why NASA should continue, and I'll make a couple of my own points. Unlike money spent for defense, for which a lot goes to developing weapons technology, NASA's money is spent on things that are inherently meant to better humankind, how can you find fault with that? True, NASA is not always successful, but no organization is. The goal of any NASA development is to make something more reliable, faster, safer, and generally better. Additionally, the government cannot possibly hope to solve all of the world's problems. Keep in mind that the money the government spends comes from the p! eople. With the big energy conglomerates posting record profits should! n't they be the ones to do serious and dedicated research into alternative fuels? They, after all, have the most to gain in discovering new energy technologies... and the most to loose if they fall behind....Show more
Whitley Leopold: So NASA has given me stuff? wonderful, i love stuff.While NASA may lead in alternative fuel research, alternative fuel research should recieve more funding than NASA, especially if no one can really substantiate how NASA helps people these days.
Idell Mulliniks: Technology used on space is usefully to humanity progress.
Shamika Schools: I'm sorry if i seem scornful but as a young person its hard for me to understand how the government has been investing in NASA since the late 1950s and only recently started investing in research for alternative fuels. During the cold war, these investments were double to what they are currently and at the time, NASA was primarily about rocketships and the moon and such. All the benfits we ha! ve now as a result of NASA were more or less accidents of their original endeavor. My high school level education focuses on the rocketships and not on the NASA's benefits to people as a whole, hense my original question. I guess mostly I am scornful of the time lost, for money is only half the equation. Also, in the 1960s, the government went all systems go into getting a man on the moon. there is no such fervor in finding a true alternative to oil. Thats why, when it comes to science right now, all excitement needs to be around finding alternative fuels....Show more
Branden Round: General advancement of the human race… keep in mind a lot of the stuff you use everyday is only possible because NASA had that 16 billion dollar budget 10-20-30 years ago… Most of the people that make up NASA are the best and brightest… if there is anyone I would to give unlimited resources to it would be them, I would bet good money that NASA is a leader in alternate fuel research.
Ariel Arons: I believe people greatly underestimate just how vita! l defense is for this country. And don't forget that money put into defense also makes jobs for engineers and what not. While .59 percent might not be alot, its enough to get a serious handle on alternative fuel. Still, no one can tell me what NASA truly does for this country. "Making jobs" isn't enough of a benefit when the jobs are paid for by the federal government.
Robin Weelborg: the current condition of the world is hardly a petty problem...there's more to existence than providing for the future and regardless, nothing could be better for the future than transitioning to alternative, renewable forms of fuel
Jasper Mangel: NASA and science in general is bigger than us and its bigger than this generation so our problems are petty. You have to look at it int he grand scheme of things, It is the future of humanity.
Nicolasa Henke: Marie -No need for anger. My feeling is that we have all kinds of options already for alternative fuels. The problem is that ! they cost too much. Throwing money at known technology will not make it cheaper, especially if the government starts regulating it. It may make you angry, but the only way clean fuels will ever work is if the free market demands them. And it's just starting to do that here in the U.S. (roughly, since the day gas prices first reached $4 a gallon). The government really cannot dictate the market.NASA, on the other hand, performs a service that no entrepreneur has yet succeeded in entering. Perhaps someday, but there will never be a market demand for the Hubble function. Does that mean it's not worth it? Perhaps in the mind of those that don't use it. I think the fundamental difference is that NASA creates technology that does not already exist. The pursuit of cleaner fuel involves very little new technology, it is just waiting for market forces to catch up. One deals with science, the other deals with the economy. And to quote Ben Franklin upon engaging in a similar discussi! on during a balloon ascension in Paris "Sir, of what use is a newborn b! aby?"ADDED: You do not seem at all scornful, but I am saddened by your apparent pessimism. Perhaps the best candidate for vehicle alternative fuels is in fuel cell technology - developed in the space program of the 1960's. We have the technology - that is not the problem. We have all sorts of alternatives. If there was a demand for that technology, then the market would drive it into production today. But the only significant demand is among idealists who think that the public needs re-educating, and that they are the ones to do the re-educating, because they understand and the public in general does not. That is a very dangerous attitude. It leads to government telling people how they should live. "Everyone needs government to help them understand things the way we understand them. We know how you should live better than you do." Very bad. I used to think that way, too. In the words of Stan Laurel "I'm better now." By the way, the ultimate in pessimism is writing off a ba! by because of the conditions he was born into. That's a desolate way to think. I'm with Ben Franklin, (one of the original liberals) on that issue....Show more
Benita Nancy: NASA hires two main kinds of scientists; postdocs (2-3 year appointment right after you've earned a PhD) and scientists (long term positions). Since NASA is a US government agency, priority for hiring goes to US citizens. Even though the job requires the most training, getting a job as a scientist at NASA is the most competitive job they have after astronaut, and requires far more background work. To get one of those jobs as a foreign citizen, you need to be able to do something no one in the US can do. They have to make a case for every foreigner they hire. Start with the PhD. But simply loving the field isn't enough; you must also be very good at what you do, and able to come up with original ideas and test them. Most people don't know if they're capable of that until they're halfway through a P! hD. And keep in mind you'll probably need to get job somewhere else....! Show more
Lester Haschke: Larry- I didnt mean for the government to spend money on alternatives already discovered, I meant for them to spend money finding alternatives not yet discovered, because if NASA got a man on the moon, somebody out there ought to be able to find an alternative fuel with less cons than pros. When half the cons are money related, the government should spend money to discover technologies that would make it cheaper. Just because the economy has not demanded alternative fuel as of yet, does not mean it is not of the utmost value. While I agree, now, that the value of NASA is in the science, in the technologies it discovers, why can't NASA work harder to discover technologies that are more need-based as opposed to luxury-based?...Show more
No comments:
Post a Comment