Would you support doubling NASA's budget?

[I am a Bird]

Yes, I greatly support doubling NASA's funding for research and development for space travel, exploration, and science. Especially in regard to a more efficient satellite array and the disposal of old space debris.

As far as complaints about us not having the money to do so or that we need healthcare. I find those points a bit reductive. Cutting NASA's budget isn't going to make that money appear in the healthcare field. We would just be a nation who doesn't have healthcare of a space agency. Except for whatever the military is doing.

And we absolutely have the funding to do both.

 

[Lagamorph]

Give NASA the military budget.
Give the military the NASA budget.

 

[Servbot24]

I would need to know the specifics of what NASA will be spending it on as well as confirmation that they've been effectively utilizing their current budget, but in general yes I'm in favor of increasing their budget.

 

[Nothing Loud]

All the people saying yes, can you explain why?

Click to shrink...

Many of our best inventions come from government research including NASA. It's not just space stuff, the technology needed to keep humans alive and sent to space is technology that is commodified and used by us eventually in everyday life.

NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Hermii]

Yes, and take it out of the military's budget.

Click to shrink...

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[shintoki]

They should take 5% of the military budget, say its for Space Force, and give it to NASA.

 

[Tygre]

Space isn't going to save the human race. Space exploration is largely a vanity project that was always more about projecting strength and national superiority than anything else. Every penny that you put into NASA is a penny you COULD have put into developing technologies and way to, well, save the planet. Hell, you could have just given it away to developing nations to pay them to keep away from their fossil fuels.

When we aren't headed towards extinction, sure, let's chase the stars (even then, NASA probably isn't the organisation to do that, though.) Until then it's way, way, way down the list of useful ways to spend billions of dollars. Just because it's better than pumping it into the military doesn't make it a good or useful cause.

Click to shrink...

Space is the only thing that's going to save our species.

We rely on space to survive. We mostly rely on the very hot bit of space roughly 432,288 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away, which we still know surprisingly little about. Understanding space is fundamental to understanding Earth, and understanding Earth is fundamental to saving it.

Oh, also, NASA does a hell of a lot to enhance our understanding of Earth. We would know comparatively jack-shit about Climate Change were it not for all the various weather and climate monitoring satellites up there, many of which NASA had at least some involvement with.

Giving NASA's budget to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to bribe them from strip mining the Congo Rainforest for a couple of years isn't going to save the human race either. It's incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable to even pretend that's a good idea.

That's where I'm at as well. There is the argument that space related research has also lead to advances in technology that has been useful elsewhere, but why not directly invest in useful research instead of hoping that it may occur as a byproduct.

Click to shrink...

Okay, let's say you want to do some climate science that involves data that requires satellite imagery of the Earth.

No space agencies exist because everyone decided space research wasn't important. Nobody can build or launch your satellite. Hope that climate science wasn't important!

Very surprised by these results

Let's please start investing in keeping the earth not jumping ship

Fuck all the contractors

Click to shrink...

I must have missed anything ever even suggesting that NASA's goal was to find a way for us to "jump ship" and leave Earth. I promise nobody at NASA is spending money looking into O'Neill Cylinders.

Investing in NASA is investing in keeping the Earth, because the more we know about everything that impacts the Earth, the better we can understand how to maintain the Earth.

All the people saying yes, can you explain why?

Click to shrink...

Because government spending is good, and government spending on science and infrastructure is even better.

 

[Jarmel]

I'm laughing at the posters in here who think the national budget is some zero sum game. We don't pay for national healthcare not because the money isn't there, it's because we don't want to. If the public in mass generally supported politicians who wanted free healthcare for all, it would pass tomorrow.

If NASA's budget was quadrupled, that would have zero impact on national healthcare.

 

[Baron Eyepatch]

NASA handles basically all of the U.S.'s Earth science. NOAA doesn't operate its own satellites, it gets all its data from NASA. Planetary science has always been considered a window through which we can learn more about our own planet as well, you can look at what Carl Sagan was saying over 40 years ago with regard to how important it is to study Venus and Mars in order to better understand how the Earth has changed and how greenhouse gasses affect our climate.

A modern expression goes something like, 'Every dollar spent on space is spent on Earth.' NASA's budget isn't packed into a rocket and shipped into the sun. It pays scientists' and engineers' salaries. It pays for education. It creates careers in STEM that don't involve blowing people up -- maybe more importantly, it shows young people that they can pursue a career in STEM and accomplish something magnificent without having to take a military job.

Human spaceflight is largely a vanity project, but the experiments done in space are still scientifically valuable. Many growing and developing countries have been investing in space programs in the past decade because they see that it's a net benefit - spending money on a space program is actually an investment that returns enormous value to the country.

It's been a while since I read up on this, but I believe that in the Senate, NASA's budget comes from a pool of funds that gets split between them and the Justice and Commerce departments. So I believe NASA is competing for funding with the DEA, FBI, ATF, prisons, the census, other science agencies, etc. NASA's budget doesn't adversely affect spending on healthcare, education, infrastructure, or - unfortunately - the military.

 

[UltimateHigh]

double my budget first.

but yes. of course.

 

[Dyno]

I mean sure but it isn't a priority. There's like a hundred other things that need better funding more than nasa so I'd put them a fair way down the list

 

[echoshifting]

I'm laughing at the posters in here who think the national budget is some zero sum game. We don't pay for national healthcare not because the money isn't there, it's because we don't want to. If the public in mass generally supported politicians who wanted free healthcare for all, it would pass tomorrow.

If NASA's budget was quadrupled, that would have zero impact on national healthcare.

Click to shrink...

This, for real

 

[Smokey_Run]

I'd give them whatever they wanted each year.

 

[Jarmel]

Also people in here poo-pooing vanity projects is fucking ridiculous. That's how you get kids into STEM, not some theoretical amount of money your salary can be in 20 years. It's the desire to be an astronaut or a rocket engineer after seeing a launch. There's a reason why SpaceX is such a popular company for engineers.

I'm sure Sally Ride got a lot of women into STEM.

 

[Odesu]

Space is the only thing that's going to save our species.

We rely on space to survive. We mostly rely on the very hot bit of space roughly 432,288 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away, which we still know surprisingly little about. Understanding space is fundamental to understanding Earth, and understanding Earth is fundamental to saving it.

Oh, also, NASA does a hell of a lot to enhance our understanding of Earth. We would know comparatively jack-shit about Climate Change were it not for all the various weather and climate monitoring satellites up there, many of which NASA had at least some involvement with.

Giving NASA's budget to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to bribe them from strip mining the Congo Rainforest for a couple of years isn't going to save the human race either. It's incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable to even pretend that's a good idea.



Okay, let's say you want to do some climate science that involves data that requires satellite imagery of the Earth.

No space agencies exist because everyone decided space research wasn't important. Nobody can build or launch your satellite. Hope that climate science wasn't important!

Click to shrink...

I mean, I posted an exact list showing how much money NASA puts into which area on page 1 (and how little of it actually touched science and earth related projects) already, so I don't know why you think you are telling me anything new here. A very small amount of their budget goes towards the thing you mentioned, and they are great. It would be great if we would spend more money with agencies that do that with all of their money, instead of what NASA does.

 

[Daniel Jackson]

Only if they abandon SLS + Orion. It's just a horribly inefficient political vanity project. SpaceX is leagues ahead of it.

 

[doof_warrior]

they could just make 5 less missiles this year and up nasa's budget by 10x

 

[BringBackSonics]

Ever since the JWST launched i've been going down the astronomy rabbit hole and wanting to see more and more missions launched, but their budget doesn't allow them to do nearly as much as they'd like.

Click to shrink...

For better or worse space is going on to be made by for profit companies such as space X and Blue Origin. Can't justify hiking up funding when we have more pressing needs elsewhere.

 

[Bregor]

Yes, but large amounts of work need to be done on controlling the costs of programs. No more cost plus contracts, more fixed price. The good news is that NASA appears to be waking up to the problem here. The bad news is that congress _wants_ these projects to be expensive.

 

[BashNasty]

Absolutely! Vastly lower our military spending, and vastly increase our spending related to science and societal growth.

And, for what it's worth, I'm talking like reduce the military's budget by about 90%.

 

[ToddBonzalez]

Yeah. Take it all from the US military budget.

 

[Marchbaby]

Though I would put healthcare above NASA for budget increases I fully support the idea of more than doubling their budget. It probably won't happen but if it ever did I would have no complaints at all.

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

How much would that cost and realistically where would the funding come from?

 

[Tavernade]

NASA's budget feels like the most bang for your buck when it comes to research/tech stuff.

 

[BringBackSonics]

The US should increase its cooperation with NATO and NATO partners and get them to contribute more and then reallocate money from DoD to NASA as well as social services. I think the US is more of a national security threat to itself (if a fascist-proper R takes power) then Canada, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan,South Korea ever will be and therefore the US should feel more free to do more joint defence projects at the cutting-edge with those countries because it's hard to imagine those countries ever actively seeking to undermine US security.

Click to shrink...

100% if we could guarantee that reduction of funding to NATO, by everyone putting in their fair share for collective defence and funnel those funds to NASA I'd be on board.

(To be fair though, Putin has done a great job of getting more countries to chip in. Doubt we will see a reduction in the US military, but one could hope)

 

[Smokey_Run]

How much would that cost and realistically where would the funding come from?

Click to shrink...

NASA's current budget is $24b and government budgets aren't a zero sum game. it doesn't have to come from anywhere in particular.

 

[Richietto]

Sure. Plenty of Military budget to use.

 

[Charsace]

It would make sense to keep at it and to get humanity onto other planets.

 

[Karateka]

I'd pay an extra 1% in taxes and send it right to cutting edge science research like space, fusion, green tech, etc.

 

[Witness]

NASA and the Federal Parks are part of a very few government agencies that are actually worth a damn and help to make this country and planet better.

 

[famicorpse]

Cut all the military bullshit and give NASA more money.

 

[CesareNorrez]

This is all fantasy anyway, so I don't see any reason to think if NASA budget is increased social programs won't also see increased funding. Bizzare to create a hypothetical and then limit it for no realistic reason. So double NASA's budget and create Universal Healthcare. USA has the money to do both and more.

 

[Tomasoares]

Definitely not a good time to take money out from military to nasa, but in an ideal world, definitely.

 

[darkazcura]

I mean, I posted an exact list showing how much money NASA puts into which area on page 1 (and how little of it actually touched science and earth related projects) already, so I don't know why you think you are telling me anything new here. A very small amount of their budget goes towards the thing you mentioned, and they are great. It would be great if we would spend more money with agencies that do that with all of their money, instead of what NASA does.

Click to shrink...

You focused only on Earth Science as if that is the only thing that matters with regards to climate change and 'fixing' this planet. Planetary science and space operations (how do we think any satellite NASA has out there monitoring weather patterns is maintained?) definitely contribute to this as well, which are more significant chunks added on top of Earth Science. Actually the entire science portion is incredibly important, not just Earth Science.

It's a pretty short sighted view to think research on space doesn't help us understand our planet as well. It's completely fundamental to saving the planet.

Human exploration is the only thing on that budget that is whatever/vanity.