Space exploration

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So I've been thinking about this lately, and I was wondering what the general thoughts on this are.

Supposedly, NASA gets about $16 billion annually. I don't know how that compares to the space programs in other countries, but to me, that's a lot of money. I don't know how the NASA budget works out, nor do I know the politics behind it, but it seems to me that $16 billion could go towards a whole lot of public schools, or could even go towards a whole lot of armor in Iraq (I know that's the sentimental cliche of the day, but it's the truth).

Is this worth it? Is there a really strong argument to maintain public funding for this? I particularly would rather see more exploration of the "space" right here on Earth. How does the budget for NASA annually compare to that of the CSCOR, for example?

It's uncharacteristic of me to say this, but can't the space program be privatized? Why can't we let the stupid billionares be the first to Mars, and save the $16 billion for other more earthly projects?

[Helm]

I do not know where this budget goes. After the space race, things have settled down a lot. We don't see manned missions, we aren't going to the moon, we aren't going to mars. We're sending shit out there but... hm, it's a bit depressing, but I guess it's the sci-fi-reader in me being the most sad.

Realistically, I'd rather see direct military cuts that go to schools/whatever you mentioned rather than NASA cuts. 16 billion is nothing compared to your military budget ( I guess? Can someone back this up with numbers?).

[Emu]

16 bil is a drop in the bucket.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget):

The military expenditure of the Department of Defence for 2004 was:
Total $437.111 Billion
Operations and maintenance $174.081 Bil.
Military Personnel $113.576 Bil.
Procurement $76.217 Bil.
Research & Development $60.756 Bil.
Military Construction $6.310 Bil.

Edit: Jesus, look at this graph comparing our military expendatures to other countries:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The military budget is bigger, but the defense of this country is one of the most basic, outlined purposes of our government. Flying people into orbit is not.

EDIT: I'd rather not get wrapped up in the military budget. It's huge, it's wasteful, and it's contentious. Point taken. However, my initial question was can anybody make a really rational argument for spending $16 billion on space exploration? If asked, most Americans might support a strong, expensive defense. I wonder though what their opinion might be of NASA's budget...?

Rather than comparing it to the military budget, how does it compare to the budget of say the NEA? I know $16 billion may be just a "drop in the bucket," but that's still money better used elsewhere.

[Helm]

it's not a distracting argument. the 10% of the military budget being redirected into more viable directions comes way first than 100% of the nasa budget.

I am saddened to see you say

The military budget is bigger, but the defense of this country is one of the most basic, outlined purposes of our government.

when your military hasn't been put to use to the defense of your country since the second world war. You've started enough wars with it as of late, though, so I guess money well spent?

The degree to which nasa is 'useful' useful is in the future colonization of other planets. As scientists become less and less enthusiastic about those prospects, the field drops into 'gentlemen's club'-type of applicationless star-gazing, like other academic fields.

[Ninjavenom]

A large portion of that money goes to their technology, obviously. Their computer banks alone contain not only a ridiculous amount of space, but a ridiculous amount of data as well. They keep archives of the 1PB reels they record weather and climate data onto, and the computers they use are hundreds of massive server banks with ridiculous amounts of power. One of my dad's friends works for NASA and deals with those things, and he told me the pictures of a 1x1 mile square of land is somewhere near 12,000x10,000 px in size and at an insane resolution. Consider also that they are taken every hour and at damn near every place the satellites can see, and you've got yourself a LOT of data, and you'll need a LOT of money to archive and store it all. Also, i imagine rocket fuel and rocket scientist salaries are a factor. Not enough to validate having such a big, gay, budget, but it might put a dent in it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

when your military hasn't been put to use to the defense of your country since the second world war. You've started enough wars with it as of late, though, so I guess money well spent?

National defense is a relative argument, and it's not one worth ruining this topic over, because it isn't debatable in the U.S. I'll say it once again-- the defense of the this country is one of the most BASIC principles outlined for our government in the Constitution. It's an issue of patriotism to many Americans that we have the biggest, strongest military. I don't see the same vigor for space travel, which is what leaves me perplexed over their budget.

The degree to which nasa is 'useful' useful is in the future colonization of other planets. As scientists become less and less enthusiastic about those prospects, the field drops into 'gentlemen's club'-type of applicationless star-gazing, like other academic fields.

Right, which seems rather useless to me. According to NASA scientists, they simply don't have the money they need (of course), and their ships are old and outdated. But outdated for what? Who's setting the standard on this? I would again like to see the oceans explored a little more than Mars, or perhaps some investment into environmental conservation (gasp!)? Trying to reach Mars seems like an awfully expensive ego trip.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They keep archives of the 1PB reels they record weather and climate data onto, and the computers they use are hundreds of massive server banks with ridiculous amounts of power. One of my dad's friends works for NASA and deals with those things, and he told me the pictures of a 1x1 mile square of land is somewhere near 12,000x10,000 px in size and at an insane resolution. Consider also that they are taken every hour and at damn near every place the satellites can see, and you've got yourself a LOT of data, and you'll need a LOT of money to archive and store it all. Also, i imagine rocket fuel and rocket scientist salaries are a factor. Not enough to validate having such a big, gay, budget, but it might put a dent in it.

These things actually make a lot more sense than anything that kept popping into my head.

[Helm]

also a lot of research and development nasa does could very well be tweaked into being, if it's not from the get-go, weapons and tacticals research and development.

[Emu]

Nearly everything NASA does is redirected into military applications nowadays. That's practically the only reason they're still here.

Remember when Bush said he was going to put a man on Mars? Good times.

[kahljorn]

"when your military hasn't been put to use to the defense of your country since the second world war. You've started enough wars with it as of late, though, so I guess money well spent? "

Yea, and we saw how good our defenses worked at PEARL HARBOR. Maybe they needed another 300,000 for a pair of binoculars?

[El Blanco]

If we don't have space exploration, where are we gonna get the green skin chicks with three boobies?

[Ninjavenom]

We already have Puerto Ricans, that's close enough.