Obama to defund NASA's planetary exploration program in 2013

Yes... Make NASA part of the military, add some guns to new space shuttles, and you could probably get Republicans to support it.

Sure that is the logical option.

But I choose the impossible! lol

Can you imagine what would happened if we gave NASA jurisdiction over ALL areospace related issues except civil aviation and gave them the equivalent budget?????????????

Well, not even.

I think, if I were in a position to do so, that I would make NASA the civilian relations and noncombat research arm of the Air Force. While the USAF focuses on making the better bomb, NASA makes all the nuts and bolts to deliver the bomb—and in the process makes cool shit for the general population to use, as well as mapping and exploring space.

It would make NASA functionally untouchable, as most politicians seem to consider military funding to be a sacred cow...

...I chose... RAPTURE!

And, no, I can't imagine it. But it sounds like it would be cool.

edited 27th Oct '11 7:24:26 PM by USAF713

Forget that, we need Space Battleships.

That works too.

The military already has a space division I believe. IIRC, it receives something like five times the annual budget of NASA.

I'm more depressed that they're cutting this instead of less worthy programs. Cut foreign aid or art or museum funding well before you cut NASA, NASA does something worthwhile. There's dozens of other things you could cut, this just doesn't have the same levels of pork appeal.

space exploration is best done by unmanned probes and space telescopes, not people.

What, is this true? That's spectacularly stupid. What does that division do anyway?

Uh, no. Best is a human on site, able to make splitsecond decisions. With probes, by the time you get picture that has something interesting, it's already lost since probe has moved, not to it takes equal time to get message to the probe. With telescopes, can you study athmosphere or soil?

This is why we want humans to space. Because, unless we create self-aware AI human is still best science maker out there.

Runs the other half of the satelites that NASA is not allowed.

edited 28th Oct '11 1:43:33 AM by Mandemo

Oh all right, that's rather more reasonable. Don't know about five times the budget but you need those.

Mainly the espionage and such satelites, the "we-totally-don't-have-satelites-looking-here" ones. Guess they are suppsoed to be charge of some sapce miltiary stuff too, tough official there ain't anything... Like we beleive anything that is "official"

Spy satellites. Lots of them. You also can't cover as much ground since you need them smaller and what not. And anti-satellite missiles and stuff.

When the robots rebel, I'm going to be on their side.

Also the Sword of Damocles and the Space Marine.

The Martians have WMD s!!!!!!!! Look at this pictures from <STRIKE>CIA</STRIKE> Nasa...

That will get us there. Thrust me.

@USAF:

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different... I chose the impossible... I chose... NASA

edited 28th Oct '11 5:57:10 AM by Baff

Here's a small glimmer of hope; it may just be a rumor after all, or at least mostly a rumor: [1] [2]

edited 28th Oct '11 2:42:20 PM by Jeysie

Please be true, please be true, please be true.

edited 28th Oct '11 2:38:05 PM by TheRichSheik

Oh rly? We can't send people to Juipter you know, and the Hubble let us see things we can't get to in a life time. Considering the costs, what I said is true. You might be right for the moon, for instance, but 20 minutes to 4 hours is kind of a slow reaction time for things on Mars. But hey, sending people there and getting them back is much less practical.

As long as NASA keeps putting space telescopes and probes out, I am happy. Sending people to Mars would make me estatic but I must be realistic about such an attempt to get people to there, and the hardest part, GETTING THEM OFF MARS. The planet's more massive then the moon and it won't be as easy to reach the escape velocity while not having a payload too heavy to take off from Earth. I guess though that they could link up with more fuel in space that was ready and waiting for them though.. as well as some being sent to Mars ahead of them.

But the entire idea is extremely daring. Somewhat of a long shot getting people on Mars and back safely that is. The moon was challenging but Mars has a whole new set of challenges and problems to over come as well as an incredibly great distance to cover. Some may say "people said this about the moon though!" but what you are failing to realize is that 1) im not saying its impossible, and 2) this is an entire new ballpark from the moon, the senerio and obsticals are different here.

You know what? The James Webb Space Telescope was supposed to come out in 2007. JWST is like Hubble times seventeen, and it's primary mirror was five times in diameter what Hubble was, but taxpayers were unwilling to spend the money and Republicans instituted budget cuts. The earliest possible launch date for JWST is 2018.

Thanks, republicans. You've held back arts and science to support the greed of taxpayers.

edited 28th Oct '11 3:31:18 PM by ATC

There were only a handful of actual budget cuts within the past two decades you know.

It's not the greed of the taxpayers, ATC, it's the greed of the corporations that are trying to get out of paying taxes.

Prove it.

Guys, I'll tell you what everyone incharge sees as really important: money.

Answer me this: Does NASA make money, or is it a drain on resources? Because that's all anyone cares about. No one cares if they're coming out with new memory foam. No one cares about the next space telescope. No one cares about Latex Spacesuit s.

What they care about is money. The average citizen cares about their bank account. They worry about paying the bills. The public service workers want better wages. Roads could be paved.

The debt could be paid off for the first time since Andrew Jackson, or at least close.

Ideally, yes, NASA's funding wouldn't be cut. However, in reality the funding is being cut. It's being cut just like plenty of other programs.

You can talk idealism and potential technology all you want, but at the end of the day all anyone cares about is their wallet.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:03:01 PM by TheProffesor

For God's sake, Professor, you're spouting things without even knowing what you're talking about. of course it's the rich and right wing. They're not targeting NASA specifically (it seems to be collateral) but they're trying to get Congress to cut everything but the military and funnel the money into... well, they don't seem to want to do anything the money other than just let it sit there and rot or pay off their cronies.

NASA can provide jobs. It can provide innovative technology and advancement for the world. And if the Republicans could get their heads out of their asses and raise taxes and cut the military (which is far more costly) then we could have NASA and all our roads. Cutting NASA doesn't solve anything, since its cost is a drop in the bucket compared to what our government spends on everything else. Cutting NASA doesn't free up a significant amount of money to build roads.

So in other words this is getting at politicians, not caring for NASA?

If NASA is making money, I agree with you. It shouldn't be cut. If it's not...

Look, I'm just pointing out how the politicians are thinking. They care about cuts, not necessarily who gets cut. Unless it's the military.

A needless expense is a needless expense no matter how much or how little it spends. If it's hurting things, then I have no problem with temporarily cutting the funding.

Now if it's making money, then that changes everything. People will see it as useful.

BTW, I'd appreciate if you'd stop it with the personal attacks.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:15:03 PM by TheProffesor

NASA is .5-1% of the United States Federal Government budget.

The military is 20%

Do the math.

Why do rich people not even want to cut military? .-. I mean, Republicans I can understand, but rich? Are rich people patriotic or something?