Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
A little late to this but I completely disagree that the NASA budget should be cut. First, it's a incredibly small chunk of the US GDP with only 0.5% being spent on NASA. Contrast that with the TSA budget which is bigger and the defence budget which is almost 20% of the US GDP. Do we really need more warfare in this world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2010.svg
Second, ROI of spinoff technologies from NASA has been estimated conservatively at 2-3 times of it's budget. That means the US actually makes money off of NASA investments rather than lose money. Even in tough times it would probably make sense to continue investment from this point alone.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonl...00827_1798.php |
I'm not saying it should be cut, but just that it should be considered when times are tough. If research has to be cut somewhere, I'd rather see it cut from the space program, than other areas like medical, agricultural, environmental and other things that directly benefit the citizens of this planet now and not just some future theoretical payoff. Put the money towards saving endangered species and habitats on this planet instead of looking at rocks on another. If it came down to one or the other, I take this planet over another (and when times are tough, environmental programs are usually one of the first things to be cut. NASA should be fair game then too).
As someone else mentioned, space programs are more status symbols than a necessity. Like any research sector, of course there will be spinoffs that might be useful to ordinary people one day, but more than from other areas that get cut all the time without so much as a wimper? I haven't seen any information that suggests that.
Edit: Sorry, I will not rain on the parade any more. I want to see the pictures as much as anyone.