Sunday discussion - "NASA: What's the point?"

Space exploration technology is now used in common everyday devices that makes your life easier... that little ipod you so luv? would be so little with out technology developed from the space programs..

NASA is certainly the most visible of entities involved in spaceflight, but that's because of the manned missions.  NASA is involved in a lot more than that.  One thing that pops into mind is that NASA provides spacecraft for NOAA - forecasting and study of weather, and search and rescue.

Also keep in mind that there are a lot of private entities involved in space flight.  Launch vehicles (rockets) provided by these companies launch most satellites into space, including those made by NASA as well as military and communication satellites.

Space exploration is an awesome activity for our science dollars.

Manned space is not exploration any more.  It's a collosal waste of resources that could be far better spent on other activities that would have the potential to let us explore the solar system.

Satellite communications.

GPS.

Weather sats to monitor those pesky hurricanes.

Fire resistant fabrics that protect firefighters and rescue workers.

The speedo LZR (bet you didn't know that one).

Lithium battery technologies.

Aerodynamic research which heavily influenced 18 wheeler truck designs.

Polymer coatings on implantable medical devices.

Software originally used to interpret satellite imagery is being used for noninvasive ultrasound heart monitors.

Yes, let's privatize it.  With all the business money that's running our economy.  Just like we should have privatized social security.  There is no constitutional authorization for that either.  Besides, if we get rid of NASA, then the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans can take over in space.

Why do you hate America?

All of those technologies would have been discovered faster and without wasted tax dollars all the same if space exploration and research was private. Private companies would easily have made the same discoveries, and maybe even would be able to make even more discoveries. There is still no Constitutional authorization for NASA. 

And Velcro was discovered well before NASA, so I do not even know where that discovery comes into play. NASA just happened to use it more when it came out. A private space exploration company would have done the same, only without  wasted tax dollars.

Social Security ought to have never existed, and it is unconstitutional. It is ridiculous and immoral that I have to pay into a ponzi scheme like Social Security. It is more immoral that even the terminally ill are forced with a gun to pay into Social Security, though they will never see the benefit.

There would be plenty of business money in the economy if the government did not absorb so much GDP with taxation and unconstitutional spending programs. If the Federal Reserve system did not exist, we would have an honest, sound money system which would not have these huge housing and bond bubbles that we have to deal with because of them; and the Federal Reserve is also unconstitutional. 

So it seems like if the government just obeyed the Constitution, we would be doing very well right now. I don't hate America, just 90% of the government. Ironic, because being in the military, I am part of the government. Ponder that...

If private companies could do it faster, why didn't they?  It's not like NASA is going around shutting down private R&D.

There's no FAA or FCC in the Constitution either.  Should we get rid of those?

If you want to talk about wastes of money, let's talk about the F-22. 

You were almost preachin to the choir with that post. I am a Libertarian, and a huge Ron Paul supporter. I oppose our troops being in 130 other countries, dying for the defense of other nations. The US Government's foreign policy is unconstitutional.

I am also a big proponent of personal responsibility and voting with your dollar. The economy is only in a mess for Keynesian economists, but in the Austrian school, this is the solution to years of artificially low interest rates brought by the Federal Reserve.

You ask what happens to the military when money runs out, and it is a good point. One of two things will happen. The government will go fascist and force people into the military without pay and force companies to give the government supplies and weapons, or the military will "revolt" and the American government will collapse because of a lack of ability to enforce laws, thus allowing for some other stronger nation to take over, or for freedom loving Americans to form a new government.

I disagree that the military should applied at home in the manners you suggest. If pilots were armed, 9-11 probably could have been prevented, and if airports had private security, like many other nation's airports have, security would be better and more efficient.

You also ask what should happen to the old and young, and while your examples are extreme, I understand. But this is an easy answer: family members take care of each other. When Mom and Dad get old, they are taken care of by their children.  Then parents take care of their children, educating them through home school, or by sending them to a school of their choosing (if America was the way I would like to see it, rather than the government ran, propaganda filled, failing school system we currently have).

Finally, you ask why I continue to work for the Government if I hate it so much. This may seem like a poor answer, but it is simply because I signed a contract to serve it for 6 years when I was younger and ignorant, right out of high school. Now that I am almost half-way through my enlistment, I will put up with it because I'd rather not go to jail, and I can take advantage of the money I get paid and go to college part time for almost free.

We are in a heap of trouble, and most people do not know how bad it will get. The dollar will collapse at the rate things are going, hyperinflation is in store for this nation, and things probably get as bad as pre-WWII Germany. Let's hope that basic mathematics are wrong, and that I am wrong as well. 

And all of these are related to space exploration how?  I would guess that at some point, all of these products would have been developed minus NASA.  My question is: what's the point of a "space station".  It will be used for.............?  The ROI for the tax payer is............?

No, NASA does not directly shut down R & D, but because money in the economy that could be used by private companies is soaked up by NASA, private sector progress is hampered. If the money that NASA gets through taxes was instead money that private companies had, there would be more investment money available for private space exploration and research.

We should get rid of both the FAA and FCC. Many other nations have privatized versions of the FAA, and private companies could provide far better airport security. The FCC is ridiculous in the fact that someone thinks it exist, as it is almost like "prior restraint" on journalism and has the ability to censor as it pleases.

We can talk about the F-22, I know a little bit about that, being a weather forecaster in the Air Force. Yeah, it is a big waste of money. They try to upgrade the aging Air Force fleet, but there is no money in the budget for it because of insane no-win wars all over the world that America can no longer afford. I cannot wait for the American Empire to shrink back, realizing that people like Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers were right all along.

If you are saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of choosing who lives and who dies, I would agree with that.

Are you sure about your statement the NASA was the fastest way to space? What other government own program has done things better, quicker, and more effectively that the competitive market?

It was Charles Limburgh and not the Air Force who flew across the Atlantic to claim his $25,000 prize.

According to a book I read recently, NASA is spending $450 Billion over the next 20 years getting to Mars. Why not offer a prize of $10 billion for the first company to put a lunar base on Mars and $20 billion for the first company to get to Mars and back? I bet the winning company will get there quicker than Nasa at a huge savings to the $450 Billion the government plans to spend.

Nice post Jackemy. It reminds me of the Human Genome Project, as an example of how private industry is better than government bureaucracy.

 How does it not compare? The HGP was government funded, yet was surpassed by Celera Genomics, a private industry. This was with literally 1/10 of the budget, and all money Celera used was private funds, not money taken from taxpayers by the barrel of a gun. It is a great example of how private industry trumps government.

Companies would front that much money, if there was profit involved. This is where the controversy between private research vs. government research comes into play. Private industry usually will only work for a profit, which is fine. Government "tries" to do research to "benefit all people." Though government ran programs are generally clumsy and have a lot of bureaucrats getting paid to do nothing other than create more red tape, which inhibits progress.