Obama to defund NASA's planetary exploration program in 2013

I edited my post.

(Bad pagetopper, check previous page.)

edited 28th Oct '11 10:16:08 PM by TheProffesor

No, they make money off perpetual war.

"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."

Oh, I see ._.

Stupid evil rich people...

Quite a few Republican congress critters fight for NASA, it's just much more likely to be the case if that's their congressional district. As far as most congressionals are concerned, NASA is just another form of pork that can be exploited.

Because politicians are short-sighted pricks.

Not necessarily short-sighted... they just don't give a damn, because they won't be there to see it happen.

I have not made one single attack on you, Professor.

And NASA was never about monetary profit. The profit we gain from it comes from the technology and the science. It's the knowledge we gain from it that is our profit.

Technically, considering that no other company are bothering to advance technology on their own, you could say that... How did it go? "No need to fix something that isn't broken?"

Anyhoo, while I agree that technology should progress if possible and NASA seems to do that while trying to figure out how space stuff would work, until economy stuff its good again, freezing the funds isn't a bad idea.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:26:42 PM by SpookyMask

They're equivalent.

They're equivalent.

Not really. For me short-sighted means they're not smart enough to think ahead. Not giving a damn means that they don't give a damn.

Touche.

That doesn't answer my question. My question is if they make money, not if they create new technologies.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:40:14 PM by TheProffesor

Possibly. They've generated a lot of patents.

I doubt it, though. Government programs aren't usually set up to make money. If the government was designed to make money, we wouldn't have a government, we'd just let corporations run everything.

That violates Hanlon's razor!

Well now you know why the funding is being cut.

Why, because NASA doesn't run a profit?

Fuck that noise. That's ridiculous. If the only things that got made was the stuff that makes a profit, we'd still be in the '50s.

Under the assumption that "it isn't profitable" doesn't mean "it has no applications." Things without applications are always of questionable use, when it comes to funding.

I am increasingly finding that it is impossible to actually regulate funding for science. Perhaps I'd just need creative punishment for unethical scientists. Anyhow, that line of thinking doesn't work for science funding...

It doesn't matter to them. You can talk about how they make science all you want, the point stands that it's being cut because right now money is more important.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't cost much. It doesn't matter if you could save more by cutting military funding. What matters to the people incharge is that it costs more than it gains in the way they need it.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:53:46 PM by TheProffesor

Er... so what?

That's not a justification, that's just ignorance. Flagrant ignorance, in fact.

We could cut military funding by a third and draw down our international forces and save an order of magnitude more than we would by completely eliminating NASA, but noooo, the US has to play Cold War 1.0. still.

Don't blame me, blame them. They're in charge. I merely pointed out why it was happening.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. The military is irrelavent. They care about NASA and what NASA is earning or helping solve the problem.

NASA doesn't create that many jobs, either. It's on the chopping block for those reasons.

edited 28th Oct '11 10:57:40 PM by TheProffesor

Well, I could have told you that. I'm pointing out why it's profoundly stupid.

I realize that they don't care and why they're doing it, thank you. Doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Then I have nothing further to discuss at this time.

Eventually NASA will get refunded or it's responsibilities will be shifted elsewhere.

The Professor, you realise that your "NASA makes no money" is stupid argument? You could use that against everything, since pretty much 90% of goverment programs no not generate money.

I also already posted earlier numbers concerning NASA and military funding, and how you can get over twice the NASA funding saved by cutting military budget. As far as I know, military produces even less profits and drains even more, so wouldn't it make more sense to cut it?

Also...

Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

NASA provides no money, huh? As opposed to the military that's budget request for next year is over 1 trillion dollars?

Well then once again the Republicans can **** my ****. wait, can I say that on the forums?

Indeed... Republicans did everything they could to kill the new orbital telescope.

Why? Becuase they dont like science, and because they dont like us taking pictures of the universe proving there probably is no god.

Rationalise it as you will, but this reason stands, even without them realaising, at the core of their gerneral stance on science.

edited 29th Oct '11 4:48:30 AM by Baff

For fuck's sake... this argument again? About cutting off your fingers to lose weight?

The military doesn't make money either; it's power and defensive potential protects America and it's interests though, which indirectly makes money through improved means to do business globally.

And you could cut 10% of military budget (ask the military experts where, they'd know more than I do; all I know about are wasteful contracts and R&D) and save loads more money than NASA consumes.