Congress Passes Bill Pushing NASA to Send Humans to Mars by 2033

[Simplyfun]

Basically they're telling them how to focus the money they do get even if they do have to drop other stuff. 19.5 billion isn't pocket change when it's task focused.

That's more than the entire economic output of Georgia or Iceland for example. If NASA were a country that would put them around the 110th largest nation based on projections for 2017.

If you tell a guy you'll give him fifty bucks to unload the truck, that's generally what happens. If you give him a 100 bucks with the general instruction to "do some work" the truck might not ever get unloaded depended on how he prioritizes.

 

[mesyn191]

Basically they're telling them how to focus the money they do get even if they do have to drop other stuff. 19.5 billion isn't pocket change when it's task focused.

For the task Congress is telling them to do it is. Space is real expensive. And yes that does mean that if you want to go to Mars you have to spend more money on it than some smaller countries entire GDP.



EDIT: who? Congress?! If you do mean them you couldn't be more wrong. They've been using NASA as a glorified pork project funding source for a long time now and they constantly screw with NASA's projects to score cheap political points and divert funds. Its practically sabotage at this point. \/\/\/\/

 

[Bowman15]

At least they have their priorities straight.

 

[Simplyfun]

For the task Congress is telling them to do it is. Space is real expensive. And yes that does mean that if you want to go to Mars you have to spend more money on it than some smaller countries entire GDP.

Obviously they aren't taking your extreme budgeting skills into account here then. I suggest you write them a stern letter.

And last I looked, that money is coming in EVERY year, so if they set aside 5BILLION a year to go to mars by 2033, wait a sec while I get the spongebob calculator out here... let's see 15 fiscal years x 5 billion, carry the 1 and divide by my 3 remaining good toes, lessee now... shit battery went dead.

Yeah I think even at 25% of budget that 45 billion can get you, your buddy and a roast turkey sent there and back in my opinion. Give the 45 Billion to Space X along with the heavy rocket and see if they can get it done if we think NASA isn't up to it.

As an aside, we know for a fact everything they do that's remotely related to a Mars mission will get dunked in under "costs of Mars". Peanut butter sammiches for visiting tour groups? Going to Mars. Paper for the photocopier? Going to Mars.

 

[mesyn191]

Obviously they aren't taking your extreme budgeting skills into account here then. I suggest you write them a stern letter.

Plenty of experts who know more than me have essentially said the same dude.

“While sending humans to Mars, and returning them safely to the Earth, may be technically feasible, it is an extraordinarily challenging goal, from physiological, technical, and programmatic standpoints,” Sommerer testified. “Because of this extreme difficulty, it is only with unprecedented cumulative investment, and, frankly, unprecedented discipline in development, testing, execution, and leadership, that this enterprise is likely to be successful.”

He implied that NASA presently had none of this in sufficient quantities. According to Sommerer, the technical panel found that it would take NASA 20 to 40 years to send humans to the surface of Mars at a staggering cost of approximately half a trillion dollars.
..........................

Sommerer told Congress that the nation either needs to commit wholeheartedly to a Mars mission, or the agency should stop pretending it is on the course to go there with humans. “It might be better to stop talking about Mars if there is no appetite in Congress and the Administration for higher human spaceflight budgets and more disciplined execution by NASA,” he said.

This has happened multiple times now, that article is just about one of the more recent unreasonable show boat requests from Congress to NASA on this issue. If you want NASA to go to Mars its going to take a national funding effort at least as big and as protracted as going to the Moon in the 60's. If not bigger.

Yeah I think even at 25% of budget that 45 billion can get you, your buddy and a roast turkey sent there and back in my opinion.

You don't know a thing about how much it costs to go into space much less to send people to Mars. You're just doing a crappy knee jerk "gorsh these numbers sure are big" post.

 

[Simplyfun]

You don't know a thing about how much it costs to go into space much less to send people to Mars. You're just doing a crappy knee jerk "gorsh these numbers sure are big" post.

Gorsh, I didn't realize how much money it would cost. Actually I did. The numbers quoted by experts include the research money already spent over the past decades that will be attributed to a Mars mission just to make the number as big as possible. Remember the copier paper?

In any event, if that's how legislators want the money spent and how they want it prioritized, that's simply where it should go. If that means hard choices in cutting other programs, even to the detriment of the entire species, even if it's bloody illogical, that's still the call of the people paying the bills.

I don't rationally think they can do it with what they have on hand because I don't think they could or will cut the other programs. But if they get 60 per cent done and can show any kind of progress they might get enough to finish.

If that guy unloading my truck said he needed another day to do the job even though he obviously worked hard all day today, I might find another 50 bucks for tomorrow because I still want that truck unloaded. But if he took the first fifty knowing he was going to spend the day inventing new mirrors for it I'd probably fire him, because I don't want new mirrors and that wasn't his call to make.

 

[mesyn191]

The numbers quoted by experts include the research money already spent over the past decades that will be attributed to a Mars mission just to make the number as big as possible. Remember the copier paper?

LOL, no. You have no clue of the work or money that is needed at all. Again there are multiple experts who put the price around that number and give similar time frames. Your opinion doesn't rate at all on this subject.

In any event, if that's how legislators want the money spent and how they want it prioritized, that's simply where it should go.

Wow man you have no clue at all of what Congress is doing to NASA. Congress is telling NASA to go to Mars but they're also telling NASA to do many other, also necessary, projects at the same time without increasing their funding. The situation is, at best, a sick joke. And NASA could cut all their other programs and just focus on a Mars mission they still couldn't send a man to Mars by 2033.

But if they get 60 per cent done and can show any kind of progress they might get enough to finish.

This is not a situation where "close enough" is going to amount to anything. Your truck unloading guy analogy is also shit BTW. A better one would be trying to go the Moon in the 60's on a shoe string budget, half assing everything along the way, and then having the rocket blow up on launch with the crew inside and then going to Congress to beg for another several hundred billion to start all over again but do it right this time. It'd be MORE expensive that way! And take more time too!!

 

[Simplyfun]

LOL, no. You have no clue of the work or money that is needed at all. Again there are multiple experts who put the price around that number and give similar time frames. Your opinion doesn't rate at all on this subject.

Yeah OK, I get it, my opinion doesn't matter, only NASA knows what they're doing and they can't do it. Your point is clear. Only you and your buddies have it nailed down and half a trillion is the final number.

I hear you loud and clear.

 

[rudy]

It's really a tough thing to mandate every US citizen pay X% to fund this. I mean each and every one of us will pay for it, whatever it is. We need health care along with a lot of other things. Nothing is free!

I love NASA and the innovation. But .5 to 1% of my income is still another chip of taxes. Everything keeps chipping away and soon we all are in poverty.

Think about how things are going.

For every $1.00 you earn.
.01 for nasa
.30-.40 for payroll taxes
.08 state taxes
Those few things alone now leave you earning around .50-.60 cents to the dollar bring home pay.

How much more do you want to tag on when you consider all of the other taxes you pay. Gas/Utilities/Property.

People just don't break down their true income well enough to see how bad things are.

Science is a hard thing to get people to understand. Your life is way better because of the space race. Yes, there are many technologies that were pushed ahead in that race. And the efficiency gains we had from that trickled down to every human on earth in some form or another. Lets start with just one example. GPS. GPS is a technology that came about in its time due to the space race. Now when we were trying to get to the moon the primary motive was not something like GPS but none the less sooner or later we would have such a technology, due to the space race I would argue it was sooner. And thanks to that technology any small 1% you have to pay to NASA is nothing compared to the time and money savings a billion people gain by having access to a technology as useful as GPS. Before GPS if you made a mistake while traveling you could be lost for hours. Now days in 5 minutes or less you are back on track even if you are awful with directions. You are even safer because of GPS you no longer need to stop at some shady gas station and trust that a stranger is going to steer you right. If you multiply it out by hundreds of millions of people and drivers the space race was one of the best investments humans ever made for efficiency gains. Even just the reduction of gas usage has to be huge.

Here is the really important point. You and even the smartest people on earth cannot predict what amazing breakthroughs will come from basic scientific research and investments, we just have to cast a wide net learn as much as we can, then start applying findings as they are uncovered. If you are kind and trusting enough to give science your faith and give them money they will produce great things for you. If you are not you will force scientists to make claims they may not be able to deliver on. Then you will chastise them each time they fail. All in all I could spend pages and pages of posts talking about many different scientific breakthroughs that were the results of basic human curiosity that have resulted humans simply having a far superior life to anything they had even 100 years ago. And paying even as much as 5% of our budget for that would be an investment which would pay us all back many times what we put into it.

Another way to put it is even though you only make 50 cents on a dollar, your 50 cents goes way further and affords you a much better quality of life and you don't even realize it than had we skipped those scientific investments. Because at the end of the day all you are seeing is the money you are missing and you aren't talking about what you are gaining from that missing money likely because you take for granted the process it took to get your life to where it is today.

 

[mesyn191]

Yeah OK, I get it, my opinion doesn't matter

When its clearly backed up with no facts, no expert knowledge, and no understanding at all of the situation then an opinion doesn't matter. That is anything but an unreasonable thing to say. It is in fact the only reasonable thing to say about such an opinion. Especially in the face of an expert's opinion that disagrees with it.

Only you and your buddies have it nailed down and half a trillion is the final number.

I don't know that guy but his credentials and data, as far as I know, are spot on. If you have something from a similar expert, or some other high quality evidence, that contradicts his statements you would've posted it by now.

 

[Simplyfun]

When its clearly backed up with no facts, no expert knowledge, and no understanding at all of the situation then an opinion doesn't matter. That is anything but an unreasonable thing to say. It is in fact the only reasonable thing to say about such an opinion. Especially in the face of an expert's opinion that disagrees with it.


I don't know that guy but his credentials and data, as far as I know, are spot on. If you have something from a similar expert, or some other high quality evidence, that contradicts his statements you would've posted it by now.

Actually the real numbers quoted by the people actually looking into this are about three times that. But I didn't quote them. There's really no point.

My comments about the numbers were just to point out you glossed over what I was saying. Which is, spend the money where directed even if the effort is futile. Even if it's illogical. Even though it's stupid.

 

[mesyn191]

Actually the real numbers quoted by the people actually looking into this are about three times that.

3x what? $500 billion? $45 billion? Pick a number and cite a source.

My comments about the numbers were just to point out you glossed over what I was saying. Which is, spend the money where directed even if the effort is futile. Even if it's illogical. Even though it's stupid.

I didn't gloss over it. The analogy I gave addressed it directly. Doing things your way will take more time, cost more money, and get people killed. None of that makes any sense at all.

 

[MavericK]

theft of public funds at it's finest, and in 16yrs nasa is gonna give you a bunch of fake cgis, of course they gonna be of much better quality than the moon landing fakery

There's always one...

sculelos, is that you?

 

[Simplyfun]

3x what? $500 billion? $45 billion? Pick a number and cite a source.


I didn't gloss over it. The analogy I gave addressed it directly. Doing things your way will take more time, cost more money, and get people killed. None of that makes any sense at all.

1.5 Trillion, three times the number your source quoted. O. Glenn Smith and some other guy I can't recall his name did the article for space news and built the costs a year or two ago. Considering his knowledge of build and in flight costing, I think they did the best work. You can google that, I'm pretty sure I recalled it correctly.

Those numbers simply do not matter in the context we are discussing and you took my asinine argument as some sort of vendetta against logic.

My core point remains, they spend as directed even in the face of abject failure. This isn't my way , this is the way of those people who were elected. Don't project this on me, personally. I don't sit on that committee.

I think NASA will eventually have to fess up and say they can't do it - a statement they have carefully avoided. If it becomes important enough then International treaty will cede resource rights to companies that are willing to spend enough to get it done. There's zero chance any government will do it in my true opinion, no sarcasm here. I'd rather they fail fast and get it moving along to it's logical conclusion which will likely be a slash and burn of NASA's budget that's locks them down to near space and a burgeoning private sector space race. It won't fly without resource rights though.

The White House says it's nukes that are important and that's where they want the money spent. Listen to your Commander in Chief, your Senate sub committee and follow the damn instructions. That's really what I want.

 

[Nukester]

Science is a hard thing to get people to understand. Your life is way better because of the space race. Yes, there are many technologies that were pushed ahead in that race. And the efficiency gains we had from that trickled down to every human on earth in some form or another. Lets start with just one example. GPS. GPS is a technology that came about in its time due to the space race. Now when we were trying to get to the moon the primary motive was not something like GPS but none the less sooner or later we would have such a technology, due to the space race I would argue it was sooner. And thanks to that technology any small 1% you have to pay to NASA is nothing compared to the time and money savings a billion people gain by having access to a technology as useful as GPS. Before GPS if you made a mistake while traveling you could be lost for hours. Now days in 5 minutes or less you are back on track even if you are awful with directions. You are even safer because of GPS you no longer need to stop at some shady gas station and trust that a stranger is going to steer you right. If you multiply it out by hundreds of millions of people and drivers the space race was one of the best investments humans ever made for efficiency gains. Even just the reduction of gas usage has to be huge.

Here is the really important point. You and even the smartest people on earth cannot predict what amazing breakthroughs will come from basic scientific research and investments, we just have to cast a wide net learn as much as we can, then start applying findings as they are uncovered. If you are kind and trusting enough to give science your faith and give them money they will produce great things for you. If you are not you will force scientists to make claims they may not be able to deliver on. Then you will chastise them each time they fail. All in all I could spend pages and pages of posts talking about many different scientific breakthroughs that were the results of basic human curiosity that have resulted humans simply having a far superior life to anything they had even 100 years ago. And paying even as much as 5% of our budget for that would be an investment which would pay us all back many times what we put into it.

Another way to put it is even though you only make 50 cents on a dollar, your 50 cents goes way further and affords you a much better quality of life and you don't even realize it than had we skipped those scientific investments. Because at the end of the day all you are seeing is the money you are missing and you aren't talking about what you are gaining from that missing money likely because you take for granted the process it took to get your life to where it is today.

Rudy,

I don't think you may understand my deep desire to fun science and technology that betters our way of life. I'm just reeling from tax fatigue! So I'll just stop there while I'm behind. lol.

 

[tungt88]

Science is a hard thing to get people to understand. Your life is way better because of the space race. Yes, there are many technologies that were pushed ahead in that race. And the efficiency gains we had from that trickled down to every human on earth in some form or another. Lets start with just one example. GPS. GPS is a technology that came about in its time due to the space race. Now when we were trying to get to the moon the primary motive was not something like GPS but none the less sooner or later we would have such a technology, due to the space race I would argue it was sooner. And thanks to that technology any small 1% you have to pay to NASA is nothing compared to the time and money savings a billion people gain by having access to a technology as useful as GPS. Before GPS if you made a mistake while traveling you could be lost for hours. Now days in 5 minutes or less you are back on track even if you are awful with directions. You are even safer because of GPS you no longer need to stop at some shady gas station and trust that a stranger is going to steer you right. If you multiply it out by hundreds of millions of people and drivers the space race was one of the best investments humans ever made for efficiency gains. Even just the reduction of gas usage has to be huge.

Here is the really important point. You and even the smartest people on earth cannot predict what amazing breakthroughs will come from basic scientific research and investments, we just have to cast a wide net learn as much as we can, then start applying findings as they are uncovered. If you are kind and trusting enough to give science your faith and give them money they will produce great things for you. If you are not you will force scientists to make claims they may not be able to deliver on. Then you will chastise them each time they fail. All in all I could spend pages and pages of posts talking about many different scientific breakthroughs that were the results of basic human curiosity that have resulted humans simply having a far superior life to anything they had even 100 years ago. And paying even as much as 5% of our budget for that would be an investment which would pay us all back many times what we put into it.

Another way to put it is even though you only make 50 cents on a dollar, your 50 cents goes way further and affords you a much better quality of life and you don't even realize it than had we skipped those scientific investments. Because at the end of the day all you are seeing is the money you are missing and you aren't talking about what you are gaining from that missing money likely because you take for granted the process it took to get your life to where it is today.

Oh yeah, agree in full.
Imagine a life without drinkable running water, modern heating/AC, toilets/sewers, electricity, refrigeration, hot and cold water on demand, and basic hygiene (not to mention cars/public transportation, and modern roads/sidewalks).
Yep, even some working-class guy lives (and eats/sleeps) a LOT better than kings and nobles did over a thousand years ago.
It's no accident that many a king/emperor/noble died of dysentery for much of mankind's history (sometimes, their death was believed to be poisoning; but I'm pretty sure that in a number of cases, it wasn't their rivals, but the average unsanitary lifestyle of humanity during those times that did them in).
Remember, no modern doctors/health care system, too.
Even in terms of entertainment, your average First World person has access to tons of that (even from differing eras, thanks to the Cloud, YouTube, Internet, and computers).

So yeah, no desire to take a time machine back to the ancient/medieval era anytime soon; no sir-eee! (Besides, no one really spoke what we would call English back then, too, or even modern French/German/Italian/Russian/etc).

 

[mesyn191]

1.5 Trillion, three times the number your source quoted. O. Glenn Smith and some other guy I can't recall his name did the article for space news and built the costs a year or two ago. Considering his knowledge of build and in flight costing, I think they did the best work.

Uh they're mission cost is blown out because the mission they want to do is different from what Congress is asking for. Smith wants either a semi-permanent solution and/or reusable Mars transit in the form of a new space station that actually goes to Mars and back. Congress wants to land a few guys on Mars, collect some samples, plant the flag, and then zip on home in a single use purpose built craft using existing tech. That is where the $500 billion cost comes from.

If the $500 billion mission aint' happening then the $1.5 trillion mission is pure fanatasy.

Those numbers simply do not matter in the context we are discussing and you took my asinine argument as some sort of vendetta against logic.

They absolutely do matter since numbers were at the center what you talking about in the first place. And you claimed before NASA was getting enough money to do it on their current budget but now suddenly believe it'll cost $1.5 trillion. Hrrrrm, what is going on there? You are also essentially defending useless and wasteful projects here that are destined to failure in your posts on this subject and that is part of what I'm responding to.

My core point remains, they spend as directed even in the face of abject failure.

Except that isn't going to happen. Congress might as well be ordering them to make a warp 10 FTL capable USS Enterprise. Its not going to happen no matter what Congress says.

I think NASA will eventually have to fess up and say they can't do it - a statement they have carefully avoided.

They've already as good as said as much. If you'd read the article I'd linked earlier you'd have seen that. That was them telling Congress they're going to need lots more money if they really want what they're asking for to happen. It wasn't just some random guy NASA hired to high ball the costs.

If it becomes important enough then International treaty will cede resource rights to companies that are willing to spend enough to get it done.

LOL that isn't happening either. Mars is a pure prestige/science project. There is nothing there worth ceding anything over.

Listen to your Commander in Chief, your Senate sub committee and follow the damn instructions. That's really what I want.

So if the President or Congress asked you to kill yourself you'd do that to? Or expect NASA guys to, figuratively speaking, do the same? Even if its all for something pointless and a waste and stupid? They can't do the impossible no matter what Congress or the President orders and expecting them to waste their budget on pointless and stupid things based on political orders alone is brain dead robotic thinking.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Can these humans be Congress? ...without oxygen? Please let Nancy Pelosi pilot the ship.

 

[Exavior]

shouldn't be that hard to get a person close to or on mars. Doesn't sound like landing and still being alive is required nor is a return trip. Pretty sure a one way death trip should be easy by then.

 

[sleepeeg3]

I can see your point. If people go ballistic over the government's individual health care mandate, why should the government be able to mandate that individuals have to pay for space exploration?

The government shouldn't even be involved with space exploration in any form. Deregulate it, and let the free market prevail.

Yes, exactly. Musk is planning to send people around the moon. Yet we spend billions on NASA and they don't even have a vehicle to get us to the space station? Let the free market do its thing.

Tell me again what's the point of rushing to Mars other than saying we went there?

Our civilization will evolve, technology will improve and we will be able to do so much more and more efficiently later on. It's illogical to try and force things to happen for no real benefit, just so they can happen during our own selfish lifetimes.

 

[tetris42]

Our civilization will evolve, technology will improve

Well, you're 1 out of 2 at least.

 

[scojer]

Is NASA following this outline?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-plan-outlining-next-steps-in-the-journey-to-mars

I remember [H] posted it a long time ago.

 

[SvenBent]

Yes, exactly. Musk is planning to send people around the moon. Yet we spend billions on NASA and they don't even have a vehicle to get us to the space station? Let the free market do its thing.

Tell me again what's the point of rushing to Mars other than saying we went there?

Our civilization will evolve, technology will improve and we will be able to do so much more and more efficiently later on. It's illogical to try and force things to happen for no real benefit, just so they can happen during our own selfish lifetimes.

I don't get you logic. if we don't try to progress and try out stuff. where do you think this efficiency that comes later is magically coming from ?
Efficiency comes from pushing the envelope t using money and investing it into progress and testing new ideas and method.
just sitting on your butt and waiting for progress to provide you some new stuff is going to be a loong wait

yes you might wait and somebody ELSE improve efficiency, but they still did it because they invested money into it.

 

[tetris42]

I don't get you logic. if we don't try to progress and try out stuff. where do you think this efficiency that comes later is magically coming from ?
Efficiency comes from pushing the envelope t using money and investing it into progress and testing new ideas and method.
just sitting on your butt and waiting for progress to provide you some new stuff is going to be a loong wait

yes you might wait and somebody ELSE improve efficiency, but they still did it because they invested money into it.

I think it's more a matter of priorities. I doubt anyone in this forum (well, MOST people) is against investing in scientific programs that help advance technology, but domestically we're simply not keeping up.

-We have over 3000 regions in the country that have more lead in their water than Flint
-Our infrastructure is slowly falling apart
-Our health care system is still a joke
-The middle class is continuing to shrink
-Our education system isn't exactly hitting home runs
-We're overextended in so much military action in other countries we ran out of bombs last year
-About 20% of children in America don't get enough to eat due to food insecurity

Since everything is so great at home, let's send people to Mars! Some of us are cynical about investing in space exploration at the same time we're slowly drifting towards being a Banana Republic. These are not problems that are occurring due to a lack of technology. It's not about being anti-science or anti-NASA, it's about some things being more urgent than others.

 

[SvenBent]

I think it's more a matter of priorities. I doubt anyone in this forum (well, MOST people) is against investing in scientific programs that help advance technology, but domestically we're simply not keeping up.

-We have over 3000 regions in the country that have more lead in their water than Flint
-Our infrastructure is slowly falling apart
-Our health care system is still a joke
-The middle class is continuing to shrink
-Our education system isn't exactly hitting home runs
-We're overextended in so much military action in other countries we ran out of bombs last year
-About 20% of children in America don't get enough to eat due to food insecurity

Since everything is so great at home, let's send people to Mars! Some of us are cynical about investing in space exploration at the same time we're slowly drifting towards being a Banana Republic. These are not problems that are occurring due to a lack of technology. It's not about being anti-science or anti-NASA, it's about some things being more urgent than others.

You are absolutely right. Thats a very valid point.
I will say though ( and i might be wrong) i do think that investing into science stuff might have side effect to improve other stuff.
and i believe the nasa budget is a fraction of the extensive military budget

and also... We ran out of bombs?

 

[Dekoth-E-]

I think it's more a matter of priorities. I doubt anyone in this forum (well, MOST people) is against investing in scientific programs that help advance technology, but domestically we're simply not keeping up.

-We have over 3000 regions in the country that have more lead in their water than Flint
-Our infrastructure is slowly falling apart
-Our health care system is still a joke
-The middle class is continuing to shrink
-Our education system isn't exactly hitting home runs
-We're overextended in so much military action in other countries we ran out of bombs last year
-About 20% of children in America don't get enough to eat due to food insecurity

Since everything is so great at home, let's send people to Mars! Some of us are cynical about investing in space exploration at the same time we're slowly drifting towards being a Banana Republic. These are not problems that are occurring due to a lack of technology. It's not about being anti-science or anti-NASA, it's about some things being more urgent than others.

There are plenty of programs that could take far larger budget cuts without nitpicking the pocket change that NASA gets. For example we could reduce military spending by a scant $100 Billion, Still be spending multiple times more than any other country or any several other countries in the world, Make massive strides in fixing all the problems you list and still be able to easily Double NASA's current budget. NASA spending is far from being on the radar of shit to bitch and moan about.

 

[endalykt]

There are plenty of programs that could take far larger budget cuts without nitpicking the pocket change that NASA gets. For example we could reduce military spending by a scant $100 Billion, Still be spending multiple times more than any other country or any several other countries in the world, Make massive strides in fixing all the problems you list and still be able to easily Double NASA's current budget. NASA spending is far from being on the radar of shit to bitch and moan about.

Bridges alone would require 123,000 million:

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/

 

[Deleted member 204526]

Having a manned government space program that is the most advanced in the world is a matter of national security, and national security is a legitimate function of the federal government mandated by the Constitution, unlike so many other things our government does these days.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Bridges alone would require 123,000 million:

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/

Hence why I said "Make massive strides" Not would fix overnight. Also we are talking short term 1 year budget here. Using my example which is just an example as honestly we could easily cut far more out of it than that. Take that 100 Billion per year over the next 4 years you have 400 billion invested into all of that. You can't tell me that wouldn't eliminate easily 80% of the issues he listed there or at the least have them on the fast track to resolved. Instead our president is trying to increase an already inflated defense budget by 98 billion. I mean honestly come the fuck on. I'm ex military, I served my time proudly.I do not object to having a well funded military, yet even I recognize how utterly out of control our military spending is right now. The point is, NASA is a small drop in the bucket of the budget that actually Benefits society as a whole..Quit pissing and moaning about the one thing you actually benefit from.

 

[endalykt]

Hence why I said "Make massive strides" Not would fix overnight. Also we are talking short term 1 year budget here. Using my example which is just an example as honestly we could easily cut far more out of it than that. Take that 100 Billion per year over the next 4 years you have 400 billion invested into all of that. You can't tell me that wouldn't eliminate easily 80% of the issues he listed there or at the least have them on the fast track to resolved. Instead our president is trying to increase an already inflated defense budget by 98 billion. I mean honestly come the fuck on. I'm ex military, I served my time proudly.I do not object to having a well funded military, yet even I recognize how utterly out of control our military spending is right now. The point is, NASA is a small drop in the bucket of the budget that actually Benefits society as a whole..Quit pissing and moaning about the one thing you actually benefit from.

Em.... I'm not pissing and moaning, just pointing out that the US is suffering from fairly large infrastructural problems. Also, I'm from Finland.

 

[tetris42]

and also... We ran out of bombs?

Yeah, dropped over 20,000 in 2015 in Iraq and Syria and went through our current supply. I mean we're making new ones of course, but not as fast as we're dropping them.

There are plenty of programs that could take far larger budget cuts without nitpicking the pocket change that NASA gets. For example we could reduce military spending by a scant $100 Billion, Still be spending multiple times more than any other country or any several other countries in the world, Make massive strides in fixing all the problems you list and still be able to easily Double NASA's current budget. NASA spending is far from being on the radar of shit to bitch and moan about.

Oh of course, I mean the Pentagon LOSES (as in they have no record what happened to the money and aren't sure themselves) trillions per year. Just because we COULD reduce the military budget to pay for almost everything we badly need doesn't mean we WILL. You may as well make the argument that we could have a bake sale to pay for it; it doesn't matter, that's all theoretical and has no chance of happening. It just strikes me as insane to spend ADDITIONAL money to try and land on Mars, which as someone else pointed out has NO practical value, only symbolic, when we have really pressing problems where even a fraction of the NASA budget could make a far more tangible difference.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Yeah, dropped over 20,000 in 2015 in Iraq and Syria and went through our current supply. I mean we're making new ones of course, but not as fast as we're dropping them.

Oh of course, I mean the Pentagon LOSES (as in they have no record what happened to the money and aren't sure themselves) trillions per year. Just because we COULD reduce the military budget to pay for almost everything we badly need doesn't mean we WILL. You may as well make the argument that we could have a bake sale to pay for it; it doesn't matter, that's all theoretical and has no chance of happening. It just strikes me as insane to spend ADDITIONAL money to try and land on Mars, which as someone else pointed out has NO practical value, only symbolic, when we have really pressing problems where even a fraction of the NASA budget could make a far more tangible difference.

Nasa's budget didn't actually change, they are just being told to allocate more of it to this particular project. Also there is plenty of practical value. We have made some of our most important discoveries when pushing for "something symbolic" like this. Sure putting a man on the moon had no practical value, but everything we learned and developed in the effort to do so most certainly did. Mars will be no different as putting a man on mars is completely different from the moon.

 

[naib]

Its called missile technology development... gosh what else can go into space and can make use of rockets...

 

[tetris42]

Nasa's budget didn't actually change, they are just being told to allocate more of it to this particular project. Also there is plenty of practical value. We have made some of our most important discoveries when pushing for "something symbolic" like this. Sure putting a man on the moon had no practical value, but everything we learned and developed in the effort to do so most certainly did. Mars will be no different as putting a man on mars is completely different from the moon.

And during that time a blue collar worker could easily be part of the middle class, college tuition was free, and we had higher infrastructure spending than we do now. I'm not arguing that space research isn't important. I'm saying it's not as important as lead in our water supply. Again, our biggest problems right now are NOT technological ones. More advancements in technology are not going to fix our most pressing problems.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

And during that time a blue collar worker could easily be part of the middle class, college tuition was free, and we had higher infrastructure spending than we do now. Again, our biggest problems right not are NOT technological ones. More advancements in technology is not going to fix our most pressing problems.

Ceasing to invest into science and technology would not only not fix our problems, but likely create far more. I honestly can't believe I'm having this debate on a technology forum.

 

[tetris42]

Ceasing to invest into science and technology would not only not fix our problems, but likely create far more. I honestly can't believe I'm having this debate on a technology forum.

Who said cease? I'm talking about DEFERRING funding until the crisis-level ones are addressed. I mean hell, I mentioned EDUCATION as one of the problems I think takes higher priority.

 

[Lith1um]

Meanwhile on the same planet, Donny Tiny Hands just announced that he seeks a $54 Billion dollar increase in military spending. /Because you know, our military is sooooo depleted.......

/Waiting for the people who shot down the college tuition plan to speak up against this proposed increase in military spending, because, "How you going to pay for it?".

 

[naib]

Yeah, dropped over 20,000 in 2015 in Iraq and Syria and went through our current supply. I mean we're making new ones of course, but not as fast as we're dropping them.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population.

the book within the book of 1984 describe how to setup society such that there was no more recession, no more boom & bust, no more longing for a different party because what is now has been. Recession is due to overproduction when demand wanes and then bam... if what you are producing is to be destroyed teh workforce keeps working

 

[Lith1um]

the book within the book of 1984 describe how to setup society such that there was no more recession, no more boom & bust, no more longing for a different party because what is now has been. Recession is due to overproduction when demand wanes and then bam... if what you are producing is to be destroyed teh workforce keeps working

I've always said that the Military Industrial Complex was a form of welfare. Just like the intelligence industry in it's current form.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Who said cease? I'm talking about DEFERRING funding until the crisis-level ones are addressed. I mean hell, I mentioned EDUCATION as one of the problems I think takes higher priority.

The point is that there isn't even a need to defer it. There is plenty of money all over the place being spent on less useful things to not need to even consider NASA's budget. NASA should literally be one of the last things on the list to be looking at taking money from. How about we talk about deferring or just outright reducing the insane defense budget that they are trying to increase by an amount many times NASA's budget?