Qu0026BA: Why spend money on NASA?

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Qu0026BA: Why spend money on NASA?

Title	:	Qu0026BA: Why spend money on NASA?
Lasting	:	5.32
Date of publication	:
Views	:	5,5 rb

The Earth is flat moron quit lyingthese people must be dead inside they just lie lie lie it's embarrassing you people are silly little fuck boys
Comment from : @rm8069

They've helped create/improve br1 Agricultural tech br2 Robotics br3 Computer technology br4Chemistry br5 Medical technology br6 More efficient electricity production br7 3d printing br8 Food manufacturing br9 Alliance with Russia br10 Firefighter technology br11 police technology br12 Better food safety br13 Sensor technology br14 Global positioning system br15 More efficient solar panels br16 Water purification br17 Highway safety br18 Mine removal technologies br19 Tires with more traction br20 Chemical detectionbrbrAre they worth the money?brThat depends on if you think your baby is worth 216 billion dollars
Comment from : @misterx7898

I dont agreeNasa is useless
Comment from : @anjanikumar5344

why would you not spend money on nasa?You must be dumb if you dont
Comment from : @omega4chimp

I think there is another philosophical reason You can't characterize space exploration as merely a satisfaction of curiosity, There is real, practical knowledge to be gained from continued research Knowing how to stop asteroids? pretty practical, and dependant on growth in knowledge and advances in technology that require a thriving space program And knowledge in itself is practical How much political advantage does US get from having thriving programs?Respect, highly skilled immigrants, etc
Comment from : @sh4273

I would disagree that people are inflexible If that were true, we today would still hold true the views of centuries ago If our ancestors were never educated they would have never changed their views to teach their children, grandchildren, students or whatever Arguments and disagreements are in itself good (great even) based on design I think our internet generations today have found a way to make them, at face value, arbitrary and useless
Comment from : @HollywoodME

That might hold true if you assume space exploration/tech doesn't fulfill, in a way, a route to defend our country NASA is studying a lot more than we are aware of Advancements in aeronautics, let alone military aeronautics, have been helpful Keeping our troops safer than before (therefore keep us safer) Studying nearby planets that may have had situations that correlate to experiences here now, to me, is definitely gov'ts job Not to count the gov't funded recruitment to science in general
Comment from : @HollywoodME

Since when did this channel become thebadeconomist?
Comment from : @rbairos1

@H1TMANactual Early warnings are not predictions you moron, how is the "current program" useless when the control centers for satellites get a warning to put their equipment into standby to prevent damage? A person that pays $8,000($48) in taxes gives more than somebody that pays $100($006), do you even get the basic concept of percentages?
Comment from : @TheRedneckAtheist

@TheRedneckAtheist "I never said anything about predicting CMEs" "so you don't think early warning of CMEs" - TheRedneckretard "CMEs constantly disrupts communications" Ergo the current program is useless in preventing this NASA's budget is $20 billion There are 100 million federal taxpayers Basic arithmetic there champ
Comment from : @H1TMANactual

@H1TMANactual Knock out a satellite temporarily? Yeah, tell that to Telstar 401 and Astro-D, As an aside, CMEs constantly disrupts communications I never said anything about predicting CMEs I used CMEs because the research covers two facets of non-exploration science $20 per taxpayer? You're an incomprehensible moron! The NASA budget is 6 cents($0006) per taxable dollar not a magical "every taxpayer pays $20" tax rubberstamp
Comment from : @TheRedneckAtheist

@TheRedneckAtheist And neither do you pretentious dipshit, that's the whole point
Comment from : @H1TMANactual

@H1TMANactual Wow, so you don't think early warning of CMEs are worth less than 1 percent of the Federal budget? What about atmospheric and weather research? You sir, are a total fucking moron You have no clue about what NASA does or the cost involved
Comment from : @TheRedneckAtheist

@TheRedneckAtheist Apparently I have to explain basic economics to every pretentious moron on the internet It's called cost-benefit (go look it up)
Comment from : @H1TMANactual

BRRRRRRRRRRRR : Wrong answer ! ok, if you spend money "for space" you are actually spending it on earth but it doesn't change the fact that if you were spending it for things on earth (like building school or greener car) you will still spend this money So the money for Nasa is spend "on" earth", but so is money spent for a better life And I do prefer a non poluting car instead of Gherber-Merman 5643 picture !
Comment from : @Bazuzeus

Wow, peopla reare griping over about half a percentage of the US federal budget Seriously, 2011 NASA was 053 of the Fed's budget, it peaked in the 1960's at less than 45 of the Fed's budget; right before the US won the race to the moon Damn you, NASA, for not still pulling off that sort of amazing shit, working with one 9th of the money you used to pull that feat off! Such slackers
Comment from : @midare

@Positronicity You hit the nail on the head If it is worth funding, the market will do it There is no debate over what pharmaceutical we should/should not fund b/c it is not public money Granted, I am not arguing that science shouldn't be publicly funded (although I would), but come on NASA, you should have more to show for the nations investment
Comment from : @drmcmoney

Whole planetary population needs to spend more money on space exploration and development, even through taxes Its important to the survival of our entire species, we will eventually go extint on this planet if we all stay here
Comment from : @EvitoCruor

All you explained was why science is important You did not, in the slightest, touch on if it is a governmental responsibility to use taxes to fund programs Which is what people are asking when they say "Why spend money on NASA"
Comment from : @DoesntUpload

@fegolem: Mark Rosenfelder experimented with this, by having the members of his forum answer a questionaire about how they would want their taxes spent He found that, contrary to the warnings of some people, they did not propose ridicualous things like de-fundind the IRS of the armed forces, but they did tend to allocate much more education and research I'd love nothing more than to be able to do that
Comment from : @valhar2000

My short answer would be the periodic global mass extinctions found in the fossil record Just look at the Permian–Triassic GME There’s also the possibility of a nuclear war wiping out all human life Stephen Hawking says we need to be a multi-planet species for these reasons I always hear people say, “Save the planet” but the planet is doing just fine after 5 GME’s The animals at the top of the food chain during each GME - not so much
Comment from : @youcrackmeupdude

@mmmodafoca LOL you're telling me that? Read your post I replied to Innovation happens better when the government is not involved
Comment from : @ivanandreevich8568

Yeah, lets shut down NASA and found new cola companies with more sugar, fast food varieties, shows like dancing with stars (lets bring the most expensive artist) and finally lets create another Vegas casino city mostly close to New York, that will bring similar amount of jobs plus we get more fat/lazy and ignorant, why we want to know more? people want to get fun, consume their planet and leave it without giving a shit for their children and grandsons
Comment from : @agustinbs

Wow So many of you people missed the point entirely
Comment from : @Locke99GS

@IvanAndreevich but the argument isn't whether scientist/engineers can or can't contribute to the world it's whether the government should fund Nasa You're an ass for assuming that i would thinking Nasa is the only way Scientist/Engineers can contribute to the world
Comment from : @mmmodafoca

@kev3d I might also point out that the same government which tries to dissuade smoking through absurdly high taxation and social engineering programs also subsidizes tobacco NASA is a cold war relic A lumbering and wasteful giant It is time to auction off the assets and let private markets find the most efficient means of exploring space
Comment from : @kev3d

@FenrirKar And who's to say that it's less productive or less beneficial for society?
Comment from : @ivanandreevich8568

Three believers disliked
Comment from : @truvelocity

Actually it really isn't a matter of choice when it comes to government spending; that privilege lies with the politicians and lobbyists For the taxpayer, no such luxury exists Pay your taxes, shut up and we, the all knowing, all wise and all loving government will work it all out for you It is a colossal failure of imagination to assume that without government aid, there would be a shortage of scientific research
Comment from : @kev3d

@barleyLEGALdotCA -- Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc reports and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight year period (1976–1984) and found more than: — $216 billion in sales and benefits; — 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and; — $355 million in federal corporate income taxes
Comment from : @wspaceport

@barleyLEGALdotCA -- You want an economic report? Here's one: “The $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R&D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 -- and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent” -- November 1971 study of NASA released by the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, Missouri
Comment from : @wspaceport

@mmmodafoca Are you so dumb that you think scientists and engineers would not contribute to the world without NASA? Please
Comment from : @ivanandreevich8568

The question was phrased stupidly Obviously all the money is spent on Earth The argument of it providing jobs is also a stupid one The question whether NASA is a good investment or not is very valid It's hard to say, since it's a government program and no profits or losses are being taken The correct answer is probably that some parts of NASA are a good investment, while others are total garbage PS It's a heck of a lot better than bombing the shit out of other countries, yes
Comment from : @ivanandreevich8568

@drmcmoney I never said anything like that and what makes you think NASA does anything like that?This is an example of the straw man fallacy, I'm sure you're familiar with it
Comment from : @DSBrekus

@MMMODAFOCA In short yes people are that dumb
Comment from : @fcadet

@drmcmoney What? Science leads to technologies leads to benefit for everyoneNo one can predict how future scientific advances could benefit mankind but there are plenty of examples of seemingly random areas of research in the past greatly benefiting us today There are other things NASA does such as tracking asteroids that might kill us all some day and making plans to divert one if we see it, but that's just an obvious answer Pure science has value but there's no predicting it
Comment from : @DSBrekus

I find that I ask myself 'why do we spend money on NASA' quite often Unfortunately, your arguments are not very convincing to me The problem I see is that you did not address a concrete application that justifies the expenditure If NASA needed money for GPS satellitesok, but I don't believe in spending money on science for the sake of science
Comment from : @drmcmoney

@mmmodafoca "are people that dumb?" yes yes they are I worked for NASA (as contractor as most do) until the funding for the Constellation Project got pulled These setbacks puts the advancement of several fields of related sciences back also NASA isnt just about launching rockets, its the science that is being done on manned missions (and remote missions with robotics) It just kills me since their budget is actually quite small compared to many other areas
Comment from : @BOTUM255

@colin340 Well, we do have global telecommunications networks (to name one benefit), which I think counts for a bit more than a 'beneficial' technology But why take that money from space? Take half of the US military budget for the last two years and I believe you pretty much have the lifetime running cost of NASA (ignoring the return on investment) Also, our push into space contributed enormously to the environmental movement and our demand (at least from some people) for alternative energy
Comment from : @ACTheFirst

I wish the presidential candidates would hear this argument
Comment from : @bumblefritz

@mmmodafoca It's like working hard in high school to get a scholarship to college Compared to working hard in high school to have a good job and fulfilling life Some of the outcomes may be similar yes but you should've focused on what mattered
Comment from : @colin340

why was this question even asked??? i mean are people that dumb that they have no idea what Nasa and all the scientist/ engineers contribute to the world? and to have people arrogantly ask why contribute to nasa just irritates me immensely! In times of crisis it's people, like the folks who work at nasa, that we need to get us out with their latest innovations
Comment from : @mmmodafoca