[quote=""IndyBrit""]@luukje,
I would cut NASA funding, and not research anything else. I don't view research as the job of the government.
[/quote]
[quote=""LaZy""] I also disagree with the cut in funding but dont think theres a direct return on investment.[/quote]
Call it an indirect return on investment if it makes you feel better. NASA (i.e. the tax payer) provides competitive contracts to small business that could not get funding by
any other means. These small businesses then turn a profit which stimulates the economy. The majority of NASA is contractors, not underpaid civil servants. In the 50 years NASA has been in business, America has benifited greatly and helped shape the country into a world power. Not the role to research, invest, and educate? What about public schools? Also not the role?
There are literally thousands of spin off technologies in the areas of aerospace, medical, cryogenics, propulsion, power tools, etc. etc. It is too long to list, but I don’t have to, it is well documented (link below). Some very popular spin offs are wireless communication (for astronauts), wireless power tools (for astronauts), heart pumps (save thousands of lives), computer-chip miniaturization, batteries, aviation technology (also saving lives and benefiting transportation), etc.
How big is the cell phone market? How about computers? How about air planes? How about when you go to the doctor? I’m sure it would have been invented eventually, but NASA helped push it along. Don’t believe me, then read this database of articles published since 1976:
Spinoff Database
I do believe it is the government’s job to protect its citizens. NASA does that by stimulating the economy directly and indirectly. Directly in a couple examples above and indirectly with educational outreach programs. How many children are inspired to become scientists, engineers, and astronauts because of NASA? Tough to say, but I know of three that live in my home (including myself). I prefer that over the American Idol craze…
Can you list any other company responsible for saving so many lives and benifiting the world economically and technologically? Any? How many private companies (or corporations) are going to make the investments required to get back to the Moon / Mars? Do you even realize how profitable a permanent presence on the Moon would be? Do you know that we have another lander searching for possible life on Mars that just landed last week? I guess these type things are not important to some polititians (or many small minded thinkers). Do you realize that Americans spend more money on beer and cigarettes than the NASA budget!
Science and education are the key to our future and until the government can make it economical for small businesses to go into space, no company is going to attempt it. NASA is providing funding right now as we speak to small businesses to help privatize the space industry.
One more thing to add, NASA is the smallest budget of any government agency already (about 17 billion comparred to the 40 billion war on drugs). If we do not do it, another country will. China is pushing their space programs and want to establish a lunar base in the next few decades. Don't think it's the governments responsibility to aquire resources for it's citizens? Space is full of them!
[quote=""luukje""] Why do you feel the need to be able to take on the rest of the world while you only have 2 neighbours, canada and mexico, who are not exactly military minded?[/quote]
Remember WWI and WWII?
[quote=""luukje""] Maybe, just maybe, Obama is talking about spending just a little less and not making the shareholders of the military industrial complex so happy? [/quote]
Maybe he is a liberal extremist secretly funded by oversea interests. I know that’s crazy, but the point is, we can’t deal in maybes.
[quote=""luukje""] Maybe a little less weapons on the world wouldnt hurt anyone? a weapon never made, cant be used. Look at all those conflicts being fought with cold war leftovers: somalia, congo, ...?
4. Dont you realise a missile shield frighten other states like Russia en China?
5. Weapons lead to war.
Im not saying, disarm. No you need firepower to back up your words. But US allready has got more guns then any other nation. Isnt enough enough?[/quote]
Weapons do not lead to war. Without weapons, we’d be killing each other with our bare hands. People lead to war and weapons are needed to fight against evil nations. I’d love to think that all people are generally good but I think people that believe that need to watch some WWII footage of German concentration camps. People are generally neutral . Their genes and environment determine the rest.
Unfortunately it is not enough for the reasons you listed. You invent a way to shoot down ballistic missiles and they come up with other techniques to deliver them. You invent the cannon, they invent the culverin. Get it?
[quote=""lordandcount""]By the way, why would China attack the US, it's even more devastating if they won't ship anything anymore to them (including money)[/quote]
I admit it, that was my knee-jerk reaction to listening to this moron. But do not underestimate China and do not get warm feelings of a dictatorship just because they are hosting the Olympics. Here is a good article:
China speeds pace of military buildup
There are thousands more like them if you do the research. It’s not the fact that China is building up a huge army, it is the fact that their governments human rights violations is atrocious and the government is a small group of powerful individuals. At least in America, there are still checks and balances. The war in Iraq was passed with a large majority of Congress. Liberals here make such a big deal over admittedly horrible civilian casualties. I agree, it’s horrible, but it is nothing in comparison. If you read the Art of War, China is doing exactly that. They are using American dollars via interest to build their military. Ironic…
[quote=""blayzer13""]id say if anything the biggest thing that irked me about what he said was the bit about banning the development of nuclear materials...that gets rid of a significant amount of energy production that is the most efficient to date.
...
cyclo correct me on my physics stuff, its not really fresh in my mind anymore lol
also im pretty sure that some part of NASA has a hand in everything technological that happens, considdering NASA has a job for everyone[/quote]
McCain has proposed building 100 new nuclear reactors in the US. Yes there are problems but they can be over come. Nuclear is definately one of the many different enegy techniques we should invest in (safe and environmentally friendly). It will take a number of things to get us off our dependence of foreign powers.
I'm not a nuclear engineer so I would have to research your questions, but I do know that it is theorized that Helium 3 (in the lunar regolith), could be used as a nuclear fuel. I would have to read more about this because it has been a long time, but yes, that is one more thing NASA engineers are looking into and no, NASA does not have it's hands in everything.