tk421;701075 wrote:NASA doesn't even amount to 1% of the budget. What do you hope to gain by cutting their already lean budget? Besides severely curtailing U.S. research and development.

believer;701115 wrote:1% ....and if NASA's idea of research and development includes spending millions on finding space spores and prematurely splashing $425 million rockets allegedly designed to give leftist gubmint officials "proof" that man-made global warming - er I mean - climate change exists, I'll pass.

believer;701022 wrote:Well-timed discovery I might add. Never waste a good crisis.

Tobias Fünke;701835 wrote:Honestly, what the hell is the matter with your brain?

You think NASA deserves the axe because they lost a $425 million rocket? I mean hold on a second...



...you're doing the same fucking thing you clown. Never waste a good crisis indeed! You're saying now that because they lost $425 million they should be curtained. Do you know how little $425 million is?! Are you that ignorant or just get a hard on every time you think about cutting any form of government. Never mind that NASA inspires so many of America's (and the world's) brightest young math and science students and those results cannot be measured, or the myriad discoveries, or how cutting NASA would be a severe blow to America's technological edge....$425 million is like 1% of what we pour into "fighting" drugs. Shit $425 million is less than the cost of two interstate interchanges. Hell it cost in 2008 about $14 million an hour to be in Iraq. Etc, etc, etc. NASA's budget is what, .6% of the US budget, and you have your panties in a bunch? Your crusade to cure the debt problem (which I wholeheartedly agree with) begins and ends with social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense spending.

Simply put, there are just sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many things you could cut before you look at NASA, you look like a damn fool literally EVERY TIME you suggest it.

WebFire;701852 wrote:I think you are taking this all wrong. I haven't really read that anyone thinks NASA should be cut 100%. But perhaps they should only focus on shit that matters. Global warming? No thanks. And the earth is in a cooling phase right now anyway.

I find it humorous that it's ok to spend almost half a TRILLION dollars because "it's not very much". Not very much compared to what? Our huge deficit that may ruin this country? How many "not very much" projects do we need to do to add up to too much?

Also, for those who think we will be living somewhere other than earth someday...don't you think we could put that on hold for 50 years? I mean, 50 years on the earth's timeline is pretty much immeasurable. Will it really affect humans 1,000 years from now if we cut some budgets now?

justincredible;701868 wrote:I believe he meant half a billion.

Tobias Fünke;701867 wrote:What costs half a trillion dollars?

I never mentioned leaving earth as a reason to support NASA. No way in hell mankind just gets up and leaves any time soon.

WebFire;701891 wrote:Yeah, billion. Sorry.

Tobias Fünke;701835 wrote:...$425 million is like 1% of what we pour into "fighting" drugs. Shit $425 million is less than the cost of two interstate interchanges. Hell it cost in 2008 about $14 million an hour to be in Iraq. Etc, etc, etc. NASA's budget is what, .6% of the US budget, and you have your panties in a bunch? Your crusade to cure the debt problem (which I wholeheartedly agree with) begins and ends with social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense spending.

thedynasty1998;700796 wrote:NASA is a waste.

“[The Journal of Cosmology] isn’t a real science journal at all,” says PZ Meyers in Science Blogs, “but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.”

Thread Bomber;701872 wrote:

believer;700763 wrote:The obsession to find alien microbes is hardly justification to keep spending money we don't have.

You say the implications are staggering. Why should that knowledge be "staggering"? What do we stand to gain from it besides confirmation that it exists? Does it improve our quality of life? Will it help feed the hungry? Will it pay off our national debt?

Seriously...I don't understand why we must spend millions of dollars finding "alien bacteria".

Bigred1995;702070 wrote:I think I'm going to hold off until this is scrutinized more by the scientific community!

WebFire;701852 wrote:I think you are taking this all wrong. I haven't really read that anyone thinks NASA should be cut 100%. But perhaps they should only focus on shit that matters. Global warming? No thanks.

WebFire;701852 wrote:I think you are taking this all wrong. I haven't really read that anyone thinks NASA should be cut 100%. But perhaps they should only focus on shit that matters. Global warming? No thanks. And the earth is in a cooling phase right now anyway.

I find it humorous that it's ok to spend almost half a TRILLION dollars because "it's not very much". Not very much compared to what? Our huge deficit that may ruin this country? How many "not very much" projects do we need to do to add up to too much?

Also, for those who think we will be living somewhere other than earth someday...don't you think we could put that on hold for 50 years? I mean, 50 years on the earth's timeline is pretty much immeasurable. Will it really affect humans 1,000 years from now if we cut some budgets now?

I Wear Pants;702616 wrote:Don't you think instead of cutting good programs we could, you know, do something about the things actually causing our problems? Like SS, Medicare, and defense spending.

I Wear Pants;702616 wrote:Don't you think instead of cutting good programs we could, you know, do something about the things actually causing our problems? Like SS, Medicare, and defense spending.

gut;702802 wrote:What people are talking about here is efficiency and ROI. Most govt programs have plenty of fat to trim. SS never fired a $426M scud of questionable purpose into the ocean.