NASA - A Waste of Money?


I’m writing up a case study for Economics on the topic. I’ve seen a lot of people claiming that NASA is a waste because they think the money could be better spent elsewhere. I disagree. It’s such a small part of the budget that cutting it would not significantly effect the amount of money the government has to spend. What’s more, the work NASA does develops technology that can be used for things other than space exploration. Mammograms use technology originally designed while working on the Hubble telescope. So what are your thoughts?


I disagree. If you have been following the developments in space technology it should be clear to you that the future in space exploration and space technology does not lie with governmnets. One exception would be China, which sees it as a way to prove it is on par with the rest of the world (news flash: been there done that decades ago China…). The future of space technology and exploration lies in the private sector. I would predict in three or four decades NASA will be all but obsolete. The role I see NASA playing is twofold: continue to maintain and collect useful data from the vast number of instruments in use or launched already, and act as a regulatory and oversight agency on the developing space technology and exploration private sector. This oversight should probably be best done on a global scale, not just as something the US controls.


Imagine the technologies that would be invented if NASA was cut and private industry decided to open up a McDonalds on Mars.


Low gravity deep fryers?


No comment run4home?

Another interesting article I came across today:

And A few days ago Elon Musk (SpaceX founder and CEO) says that within 15-20 years he plans to have “Mars Colonial Transporters” active, capable of carrying hundred of people at a time to Mars. We’re talking Star Wars stuff now. NASA never has been or will be capable of funding that kind of development, and the technological contributions to society will be just as great if not greater than what NASA gave us during the Cold War.


This is beyond stupid. The private sector is not equipped to explore the unknown because the investment doesn’t make sense. Going to the moon has been done, the technology is there and the risk is known so sure, private space industry can handle that now. However, things like putting people on Europa or perhaps outside the solar system are not quantified risks and no sane business would engage in them. It’s the same reason governments need to fund basic scientific research, most of it turns up nothing useful, so why would a private company fund it? However, it’s absolutely necessary to push the frontier.

Again, that’s not the point of NASA. The trip to mars is a known quantity so why would NASA waste it’s time colonizing it? Mars isn’t the frontier and hasn’t been for 40 years.




Right. The private industry never did anything except lose jobs. Thank God for Obama so that we got those jobs back and the economy finally rolling!

It’s brainwashed liberals like you who think the private sector never accomplished anything tht makes me sick.


Private industry does a good job of making a lot of things cheap and affordable to the masses; It does a garbage job at fundamental research.


Because there’s no reason to waste money. What did landing on the moon do for you? Nothing. We haven’t been back for the same reason private industry hasn’t gone: it’s a waste of money. How about we put more money into “social welfare” because that’s always a solid investment of my money.


There are responses to this all over the internet. The reason no one has gone back because the geopolitical drivers ended. If you want a real answer to your question instead of being your trolling self, watch this:



The reason I’m against leaving it up to the private sector is that one of the most promising things about space exploration is the possibility of harvesting new resources. If you leave that to private corporations, you could wind up with someone monopolizing parts of space and some tragedy of the commons ish.




Neil Degrasse is a douche that is championed by athiests everywhere while doing absolutely nothing in the field of science… so basically he’s an average college professor at best. Only he’s a loud inane idiot. Go on, name me one way he advanced science rather than made athiests sound smart for quoting him? Don’t google it, answer me.


Neil’s greatest contributions to science are frontier advancement, instead it is his successful science popularization. He’s a figure for science we haven’t seen since Sagan. Sure Sagan was a freak scientist as well, but that doesn’t take away from Tyson’s success in popularizing. See: COSMOS coming this March, his several successful books or his popularity.

Attack his argument, you ****. :slight_smile:


Why should I? He’s an Internet personality that has no substance. You going to have me argue against Mr. Rodgers next?


An internet personality that addresses congress? Not addressing the substance or facts? Your republican is showing.


Using fancy speaking with no substance or facts? Your democrat is showing.'t_remember_this_in_Robocop.html


Are you unfamiliar with the English language or just spewing unrelated and inaccurate garbage?


I’m sorry but try attacking the argument instead of the person. Maybe you’ll get somewhere.