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.

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.

Yeah, I'm a supporter of NASA, but I also see it as an example of what happens when budgets are too fat.

Space microbes? Does anyone really doubt life (of course, our definition of life is evolving) exists in some form elsewhere in the universe? Even then, does answering that question one way or the other (well, technically we'd never prove it doesn't exist) matter? OK, we found alien microbes....Now what? What do we do differently?

The problem is it's very easy to dismiss or write-off $10M here, $10M there. And then you get 1000 bureaucrats or whatever in Washington with all the special interest groups and that number starts adding up after several thousand such "insignificant" checks.

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.

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...

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

...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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

I believe he meant half a billion.

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

Yeah, billion. Sorry.

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.

You haven't, but others have.

WebFire;701891 wrote:Yeah, billion. Sorry.

Well LOL @ capitalizing trillion when the figure was, I don't know...1,000 times smaller. hahaha

To answer your question of "compared to what, then, allow me to quote myself:

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.

It's like having $1,000,000 of credit card debt and you decide to stop paying for the cable that your bright sons use to watch NOVA and get inspired, instead of cutting the $1,000 weekly allowance you give the unmotivated whorish overweight daughter who simply sits on the couch and touches herself aimlessly.

thedynasty1998;700796 wrote:NASA is a waste.

The return on investment to our economy has been enormous.

I think I'm going to hold off until this is scrutinized more by the scientific community!

“[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:

They must be looking at Port Clinton. LOL

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".

Never know unless you try/search. Maybe it won't solve all of the questions you spelled out in the next 100 years, but what if it resolves all of the questions you raised in 250 years and life after never is the same as we know it? Would you say it wasn't worth the billion dollar investment then?

I find it rather ironic that the faith and obsession scientists have for proving we are not alone is rivaled only by....Christianity.

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

This was pretty much my sentiment on the first page. I was suspicious when it wasn't being reported elsewhere. I'm open to it, but it needs to withstand criticism for me to take it seriously.

I pretty much operate under the assumption that there is life elsewhere besides on this planet. It only is a matter of confirmation.

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.

this

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?

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.

We had a topic about Social Security and there have been ones where Medicare was discussed. I believe there is still one about fiscal conservatives thinking the defense budget needs cut.

However, it would seem that there is equal objection to removing every one of those as well.

No matter what, good people are going to get pissed, but something has got to give. I think scientific exploration is very important, and as much as we can, I think we should continue learning about our world so as to better live within it, but again, something has to give, and if it comes to NASA, I don't know if every single study done by NASA needs our attention at this very moment.

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.

Absolutely. That was kind of my point. People don't ever want to cut programs because "they are the problem" or "they are only x% of the budget. None of the things you mentioned are solely responsible for our debt either.

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.

thats an alien?

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.

True. There are those out there who think I'm a selfish Boomer for refusing to sacrifice at least some of the $250,000 I've "invested" in SS over the past 40 years and yet many of the same people are telling me that NASA wasting a cool $424 million on a failed rocket whose mission was to lend credence to the myth of man-made global warming was no big deal.

I'll make ya all a deal. Keep your fingers off my SS contributions and I'll look the other way while NASA launches and crashes their taxpayer funded $424 million duds....or scuds.

believer...you know I agree with you 98% of the time, but picking on NASA is just wrongheaded because it is not really the problem.

We are spending $150 billion a year fighting a vague war and being the world's unpaid policemen.
We are proposing huge new entitlements on top of other new entitlements.
....and we are doing this all on less taxes than 10 years ago.

We need to evaluate this part of the equation...not the regular amount of funding that has been historically spent on cutting edge scientific endeavor.