NASA has become a political issue in recent days. Spending money left and right on things serving next-to-no purpose. With a 10-12 billion dollar a year budget they usually blow that, and go to Congress begging to be saved from bankruptcy. Yet, still, the government funds the organization... very, very well. People have argued in the past that the idea of spending so much on an organization that has produced so little is cause for worry. They argue that so much of the earth is still unexplored and uncharted, yet we waste so much energy on space. How can we explore something so endless yet still not know our own home? Also, aerospace companies have come forward citing that there is no mention in the Constitution to whom should acquire access to space. This way of looking at things will be a basis for this debate. Aerospace corporations have released documents and statements saying that their way is the best way and NASA is outdated, taking the highway. Companies claiming this are vying for its position among the stars, the only question now is: will they ever get there?



Questions for debate:

Does NASA have an illegal monopoly on space travel? Why or why not?

Do aerospace companies deserve the chance to prove that they are capable handling space? Why or why not?

If the administration continues should its budget be reduced/increased? Why or why not?

Hmmm. This kind of seems like a non-issue to me. Unless I missed something, I don't think it's illegal for private organizations to go into outer space. It's just incredibly difficult and expensive. NASA may have a de facto monopoly on American space exploration, but I don't think it's a de jure monopoly.

Sure, aerospace companies should be able to prove themselves. I don't think anybody is stopping them. Heck, there are lots of private satellites right now.

Here's a private company with plans for the future:

SpaceDev

I think NASA should continue in some capacity, at any rate. If nothing else, the unmanned exploration of space, via projects such as Voyager, has been of immense benefit to science. I'll let other quibble over its budget.

This is easy! If anyone wants to explore space, let them!....Problem solved!

Ok, let's clear up a few misconceptions here, right now:

1. 10 to 12 billion dollars is not a lot of money out of the federal budget. As a point in fact, NASA spends far less than 1% of the total federal budget. The government actually spends very, very little on space exploration.

2. An organization that has produced so little? Think again, since the mid-to-late 70s, there is hardly a single aspect of your life that hasn't been made better due to the research and development coming out of NASA. From electronics, to agriculture, to transportation efficiency and safety, to everyday products like velcro, NASA has had a hand in it, one way or another.

3. What do you consider "blowing" money? Care to give us some examples, backed by some hard evidence?

Does NASA have an illegal monopoly on space travel? Why or why not?

Absolutely not. In fact, just this past summer and fall, didn't we see a private company build and test a manned craft that took a pilot into the edges of outer space?

Do aerospace companies deserve the chance to prove that they are capable handling space? Why or why not?

Of course they do. But I don't see anyone stopping them from doing so, do you? The problem, of course, is that they don't want to have to spend their own money to do it on their own. Getting into space is not only risky, it's expensive. Private companies spending billions of dollars to get there just might incur the wrath of their shareholders.

If the administration continues should its budget be reduced/increased? Why or why not?

It should definitely be increased. As I noted earlier, we get a lot of benefit for a (relatively) small small amount of money. Take Hubble for example. We've learned a lot about how the galaxy was formed, and discovered planets around other stars, and advanced our knowledge of how the universe works. A small fix would insure that it keeps working for us for another 20 years at least. But, despite what we've learned, the expenditure for it's program was eliminated from the budget, effectively killing the program. Kind of shortsighted, in my opinion.

Or, take President Bush's stated desire to have the US go to Mars? That will take bigger money than any single company could provide. It would also mean jobs in the computer and aerospace industries overall, helping the economy. And, what kinds of research and development could they advance that would make life better right here on earth?

NASA's biggest problem right now, is that they don't have enough money to begin working seriously on a project of this magnitude.

Edited for spelling

Of course I have heard of it. SpaceShipOne flooded the presses for too long a time in my opinion. I think that excessive spending on projects such as the Hubble Telescope and then simply abandoning it because the money is not there seems to be a little farfetched. The agency has spent money like drunken sailors in the past, that cannot be argued. The ill-management of building the ISS (International Space Station) has cost the agency 12.6 billion dollars more than the original estimates intended. This brings the total to a devastating 30 billion dollar mark, which is scary because the total costs were projected to be 17.4 billion.


Ever heard of Space Station Alpha?




So says the U.S. General Accounting Office:





So, how much does it cost to launch a shuttle?




Forgive me if I ruffle some feathers but I find the money ill-directed. How can we explore such a wholly vast area but still have our deepest oceans unknown? We have sold out our home planet to explore others. We know our moon better than we know our own earth. This is simply ridiculous! We need to hang NASA at the government gallows and let aerospace companies have their turn.

I don't get your point then. First you complain that no private companies are getting into space exploration, and hint that it's NASA preventing them from doing so. Now, when I point out that is not at all the case, you tell me that Space Ship One was overhyped. That wasn't my point. The point was that private industry was indeed capable of conducting space research and development.

By the way, VDemosthenes, I noticed that you quoted a few items, that asserted overspending by NASA on a few projects. It would be helpful, in the future, if you gave a link to the site(s) in question, so that we could inspect the "evidence" ourselves.

First, maybe you consider the money spent on Hubble excessive. I do not, considering the information we have gained because of it. Second, while you may find it farfetched, what else are they going to do with it, since congress failed to fund it past 2005? Once you strip the funding for parts, the repair flight and monitoring personnel, what else can you call it but abandonment?

As to NASA spending like "drunken sailors", I think it can be argued, again with particular regard to the return on investment we have seen, and as I noted in my prior post.

The "ill management" of the ISS (also known as 'Alpha'), and the expenses you cite in the design, came from two places specifically. Congress, and the President at the time (Clinton), who continually told NASA that they would have to redesign the station because they were cutting the budget for it, or to incorporate the requirements of other partners, like the Japanese, the Europeans, and the Russians. Redesigning something as complex as this takes time and money, to figure out what needs to be cut out, what needs to be moved, what needs to be (in the case of Russia) added.


Again, maybe to you and your source, but not to many, many others.


One of your earlier quotes says the cost was supposed to be $17billion. This quote says it was supposed to be $8 billion. So, which is it? Also, the jump to $94 billion as listed in this quote is kind of disingenuous, because that includes the costs of the shuttle flights and personnel to man the station. Costs which are funded under separate budgets. Nice try, though.


Yeah, I knew this already. So what? Again, you are looking strictly at cost, and not cost/benefit. What if research on the shuttle or the space station helps leads to the next big development in computer chip design, or aids in curing a disease like diabetes? We've already had breakthoughs like this because of the space program. I'd say that it's more than paid for itself.


Well, for one thing, believe it or not, it's considerably less expensive to build a suit that can withstand vacuum than it is one to protect somebody from the crushing depths found at the bottom of the ocean.

As to having "sold out" our home planet to explore the other planets? Poppycock. The exploration of space is as much about looking at our own planet from a new perspective as it is new exploration. And since your so worried about ocean research, you should know that a lot of NASA research has been of benefit in that area, as well:

Source Here
The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.

Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water.

Landsat imagery to discover unknown archeology sites; reveal ancient coastlines; manage the harvesting of fish in the world’s oceans; calculate how well crops are doing, etc

Fluorometer instrument used to monitor plankton in the world's oceans. Instrument measures amount of glow given off by plankton and other marine life that consume sunlight in their photosynthesis process. Much of the world’s oxygen comes from plankton.

Oil spill cleanup using beeswax microcapsules. The beeswax balls absorb oil and keep water out. Absorbed oil is digested by microorganism enzymes inside the ball. When the balls get full of digested oil, they explode and release environmentally safe enzymes, carbon dioxide and water.


Again, who's been stopping them? If the aerospace companies like Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas want to build their own spacecraft or space station, more power to them! If they think that it's too expensive on their own, they are more than welcome to try and enlist the private forest and oceanographic companies to study the land and oceans, or the pharmaceutical companies to study new medicines and medical techniques.

Sorry, VDemosthenes, the truth of the matter is, it would cost them all more than it would be worth to their shareholders to do this. Far better, and far less expensive, to spend a million or two to have NASA conduct the research for them on the shuttle or the ISS, than to spend billions re-inventing the wheel, building and conducting the flights themselves. A wheel that NASA has kept rolling along pretty cost-effectively, in my opinion, for the past forty-some-odd years now.

Does NASA have an illegal monopoly on space travel? Why or why not?

No, of course it doesn't.

Do aerospace companies deserve the chance to prove that they are capable handling space? Why or why not?

They already are. Most US rockets are built by aerospace companies, not NASA.

If the administration continues should its budget be reduced/increased? Why or why not?

My understanding is the current NASA budget would be quite adequate for the sort of scientific missions that NASA specialises in. If the US government had not placed unrealistic targets on to NASA then the Hubble project and may others like it would not have to pay the price for a useless mission to Mars.


Whats the rush? Why must the oceans be mapped and raped like the land has been? Is it not for the best that some parts of this planet do not belong to men? Given our abysmal record to date, I'd advocate leaving the sea beds well alone.

While I respect your attempts to better this debate I did not think my stand on this issue would come into play. Yes, I disagree with NASA, that is no secret. But, the reasons for which is that they have indeed amassed so much money to shift the focus from our planet to other celestial bodies. I disagree entirely. Your rantings did indeed call attention, however, to the fact that I neglected to link my source. Also, when you respond to my posts feel free not to use the term "I knew this," I did not begin this topic just so you and I could duel out conflicting points, this topic is for everyone. Believe it or not, there are people who did not know the cost of sending a shuttle into space. Pictures from a distant probe do not cure cancer. Pictures from a hovering chunk of metal do not work to find the cure for AIDS. Although NASA has given us maps it has given us no knowledge of anything found under the surface. We do not know if dinosaurs still exist! Who is to say that at the very bottom-reaches of the globe there is not a colony of forgotten dinosaurs?



Source for earlier post: http://www.akdart.com/nasa.html


As I mentioned earlier NiteGuy, please do not assume we are in private and can duke out our difference of opinion in any manner we choose. This is a public forum and I do not desire it to be closed because it is becoming to personal.

Why wouldn't your opinions come into play in this debate? It's your topic.

As to my "rantings", I've listed sources to the benefits we've derived from the Space program. I've noted the costs involved for private corporations to do all of the same kind of work, to basically duplicate everything NASA has already done, and why this is economically not viable for a private company, even an aerospace company. A few of us have also noted that there are no laws in place that would prevent one of these companies from striking out on their own. Apparently they choose not to.

As to your assertion that they have "amassed" so much money, can you tell me how it is they have managed this, considering that their budget is set by Congress? Like with most federal money, if what they are allocated isn't spent, that much more is docked from the following years budget, as well as any other planned budget cuts. It's not like NASA is hiding money under a mattress somewhere.

No, pictures from a distant probe do not cure cancer. Pictures from a hovering chunk of metal don't help to cure AIDS. Pictures from those satellites, do however, aid in weather prediction here on Earth, as well as provide valuable information on forestry and land management, ocean currents and sea-life, and a variety of other Earth-based science that has a direct benefit to us. Discoveries and information that we could not have gotten any other way.

Besides, it's not the photographs that will help cure cancer or AIDS, or diabetes, or heart disease. It's the manned, medical experiments performed on board the shuttle or the space station. Again, done in a location that can't be duplicated planetside. Research that is leading to more pure medicines because of the micro-gravity found in space, and equipment that has a direct link to medical care given back here in hospitals around the world.

We don't know if dinosaurs still exist? That's the best you can do? And you know for a fact that the reason we don't know if dinosaurs still exist, is because NASA's budget is starving some other government science program?

By the way, thanks for the link, but something labeled as an opinion piece at the very top of the article is hardly something I would call irrefutable evidence. I also note that the guy who produces this website claims no technical expertise at all, as it pertains to spaceflight, it's costs, or the likelyhood of viable privatization anytime soon.

I don't think you understand what NASA does, and what it has done if you think that they are "Spending money left and right on things serving next-to-no purpose."

Does NASA have an illegal monopoly on space travel? Why or why not?

Do they have a monopoly? I guess you could say that, but it’s certainly not illegal. The Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and Russians all have methods of reaching space. As NiteGuy and moif said, the feet of traveling to space is incredibly complicated; the task requires so many resources - money, men, and motive- that it takes something like NASA (or similar space agencies) to bring it all together.

Do aerospace companies deserve the chance to prove that they are capable handling space? Why or why not?

They have proven that they are capable of space travel. Its just that one company doesn’t have the resources or the desire to do it all by itself. NASA is simply and agency. Ever been to the Johnson Space Center? There are 4 times as many aerospace company employees there than NASA employees. Aerospace companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing to name just a few, surround the actual Facility.

If the administration continues should its budget be reduced/increased? Why or why not?

It should most definitely be increased. As I stated earlier, the majority of the people receiving NASA's budget are aerospace companies, their employees in particular. Do like watching TV? Or surfing the Internet? When these other guys started to try to cite examples of NASA's contributions, talking about the Hubble Telescope, and the ISS, they skip right past the fact that NASA is the reason we have satellites (that includes space stations, and orbiting telescopes) orbiting the earth in the first place. I can't even imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have satellites, some people might say the world wouldn’t be that different, but most people don’t realize what satellites actually do. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is not just space travel too. The Administration has revolutionized air travel, and is currently researching the next generation of air travel, with things such as the scram jet program. Once again NASA does only a small portion of the research and engineering involved in the things that it does, but if NASA didn’t exist, the sky would have no direction.