17 billion is releativly cheap for the amount of spin off and inspiration NASA provides. NASA may need to change becomming more intergarated and usful But without NASA a good amount of Drive would dissapaer which would be a great engineering loss.
One important reason Nasa should stay is that space colonisation and using the earth better as a resource are very similar pursutes. This is an area which over the comming 50-100 i think will excel and could easily be worth a lot more than the investment into NASA allowing for even greater fuiture oppertunity for going to space but it will take time.
I hope some more peps add their view here as to the question of NASA because i feel it's a top question to ask and think about.
People quickly forget technology invented by NASA is pasted to the private sector. Chances are many examples of NASA's research is in your home in one form or another.
While the private sector can be as inventive as NASA. I think the motivation usually drives the research. NASA doesn't need to turn a profit. Thus they will research areas not profitable to the private sector.
So asking "Do we still need NASA?", is the same as asking do we still need Oxygen.
So, you admit that the private sector can be as inventive as NASA, but that NASA is more likely to also provide research in areas that are not profitable to the private sector. I agree. However, why should I be pleased that NASA is providing research in areas that are not profitable to the private sector?
Did we get there at all - verify the man on moon experiment shall we?
I know this might seem a pointless question, but hopefully someone can provide an answer or link from educated and reliable sources.
Did we get to the moon, or would the crew have died on the way?
What is stopping us from returning to the moon? Many posts have been talking about NASA's research and design ingenuity and yet we can't go to the moon again.
I'm not convinced we can send a monkey or robot even. Probably not even an American Idol contestant (although I would be happy to try again and again).
Maybe that should be the next prize offer. Get something live, anything, to the moon and back. At least now it will be verifiable.
Isn't that what we expect of scientific experiments? Of publicity stunts and government announcements we expect very little - a few seconds and then a change of channel - but this wasn't one of those was it???
The "spinoffs" were developed by basic scientific research. There are no spinoffs derived from the manned flights themselves. As for scientific discoveries, most came from unmanned probes and satellites, the only science from the manned flights is discovering the moon is made from the same rocks as earth, and that zero gee causes muscle atrophy and bone loss.
We could have all those spinoffs at a far lower cost if we funded basic research and dropped manned flights.
I know, lets ask Blackwater to get into the space biz. Or how about Wal Mart, or Diebold? I am not against private enterprise, but lets remember that human greed is the worst human emotion of all and money greedy bastards need to be highly regulated and ultimately controlled by the government. Can you imagine what privatizing the Police and Fire Depts of this country would do to the general welfare? We need a balance between the gov and private business, with the gov regulating.
Actually, the desire to tell other people what to do with their money and time and labor is the worst human emotion at all. I don't know why you complain about Wal-Mart, but Blackwater and Diebold are being paid with your tax money to do the things that obviously upset you. If the government didn't have the power to take your money (and my money) and give it to Blackwater and Diebold, then it seems like you would be happy. Then, no matter how greedy Blackwater and Diebold are, they have to convince people to buy their products and services, rather than having the taxman confiscate money to pay them.
Sure, private industry has a profit motive, but government agencies are still run by people, whose main motive is expanding their power and influence. Look at the Post Office or DMV. Are they efficient? Hell, no. I agree we need a balance between govt and private business, but stifling innovation and entrepreneurship through government regulation is not the silver bullet. If some aspects of space travel and/or exploration can be done better by private companies, why not? For NASA to play dog in the manger and suppress competition is beyond petty, and ends up costing the taxpayers billions.
"I know, lets ask Blackwater to get into the space biz. Or how about Wal Mart, or Diebold?"
You forgot to include Halliburton. Kos will takeaway your moonbat license if he found out.
Seriously, dude, chill out and turn the news off every once in a while. To inject Diebold and Blackwater into this topic tells me you are WAY too pre-occupied with politics.
Except for communication sattelites and government funded research, there is no profit to be made in space. There is nothing that can be manufactured there that can't be made much cheaper here on earth.
Even the "space tourism" industry will sputter and die, once the handful of billionaires have "been there done that".
Why doesn't the National Air and Space Administration... ADMINISTRATE.
And yes, I realize that's a matter of semantics. But still, I think their very name holds the key for NASA's future. Right now what we need most is not a socialized freight company or government organized lunar prospecting. What we need is an unbiased organization who can regulate space pollution, enforce safety standards, and coordinate R&D. Its great that NASA has spent so many years doing this work, but now they need to take that experience and channel it toward helping others do what they've done.
Making a comparison between Lindbergh's transatlantic flight and space exploration isn't really valid. The Spirit of St. Louis was a wood and fabric airplane and the engines of the day were not very far along in their development, leaving lots of room for the incremental improvements that made trans-oceanic air travel possible routine. As such, the scale of the effort required was within the reach of the small aircraft companies (such as Ryan maker of the Spirit) of the time.
With rocketry, the margins for improvement are razor-thin. We are at the limits of efficiency for chemically-fueled rockets and, as such, improvements are won at frightening cost. This makes it almost impossible for private industry to take over NASA's role, the capital requirements are just too great given the current return on investment. Sure, it's possible to fly space tourists on sub-orbital flights lasting a few minutes, but this is not the stuff of which a space-faring society is built.
Like it or not, we need NASA. Now as for making NASA do a better job of it, well, that's a different kettle of fish.
NASA is the only government agency that actually earns it's keep: Here's SOME of what we probably would NOT have or would not be nearly as refined if NASA weren't here:
Structural Analysis/CAD software (Buy a car lately?)
Modern enriched baby food, athletic shoes, scratch-resistant lenses, water purification systems, shock absorbing helmets, smoke detectors, dustbusters, flat panel displays, high density batteries, anti-fog ski goggles, sports bras (Yay!) quartz crystal timing equip.
Solar energy, improved weather forcasting, forest management, environmental control sensors, telemetry systems, fire resistant materials, radiation insulation, pollution measuring devices, air purification systems.
Programmable pacemakers, ocular screening, laser angioplasty, breast cancer detection, voice controlled wheelchairs, ultrasound scanners, insulin pumps, MRI.
Magnetic liquids, engine lubricants, microlasers.
Radiation detectors, emergency rescue cutters, SCBA for firemen, self righting life rafts, doppler radar, corrosion protection clothing.
Studless winter tires, better brakes, improved aircraft engines, advanced lubricants, improved school bus design.
There's a lot more! How about just for fun, we double NASA's budget (Still a tiny drop in the buckt...) I think if you look at it really hard, you'l realize that NASA has contributed more to healthcare, education, and environemental stewardship than ALL of the governement agencies designed specifically to support those very things, and we spend millions and billions MORE on those other, less capabable agencies.
NASA did not invent the smoke detector. Myself and a group of 3 other engineering students invented the photo-electric smoke detector in 1972 at Carleton University in Ottawa.
NASA deserves some credit for spinoffs, of course, but perhaps not as much as you give. Here are some URLs debunking the NASA-spinoffs theory: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://movementarian.com/2006/09/11/urban-legends-of-nasa-what-they-did-not-invent/" target="_newWindow">http://movementarian.com/2006/09/11/urban-legends-of-nasa-what-they-did-not-invent/</a> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25spin.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25spin.html</a>
A second way to think about it is: What else would have been invented if hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) were not taken from private industry and handed to a government agency?
A third way: NASA's budget is something like $17 billion a year. What spinoffs that you list happened in the last 10 years? "Improved school bus design?" Huh?
A fourth way: If you're right that NASA is so profligate in its research, it can pay its own way by charging private industry research fees and perhaps no longer needs tax dollars.
For example - are you saying there would be no Structural Analysis software without NASA? No CAD software without NASA?
Can you tell me which NASA Civil Servant invented, or even significantly advanced CAD software? I work closely with Parametric Technology, and I assure you, they are aware of no such civil servant.
If you mean NASA dollars allowed these advancements to take place then your arguement is a little better. And in a way then you support the CNET article "Do We Need NASA?".
The article doesn't suggest that space exploration (or the money that funds the advancements you list ad nauseum) be terminated. Only that perhaps it should be taken largely out of the hands of civil servants. The Agency is bloated with self perpetuating and self serving. Think about - most center directors now stop off at NASA on the way to a much higher paying job. They are unlikely to commit to risk and innovation.
In a government increasingly concerned with snooping, spying and ruining freedom, NASA is a refreshing example of what government really should be about. Frankly, NASA has made most lives better in ways people never realize.
My tax money goes many places, but NASA is the kind of place I really like to see it go.
Friend ,I do believe you have highly OVER stated the acheivements of NASA . For the ones which do research as accurate, the technology gained by NASA (which our tax $ funded ) is sold to the highest bidder so they can market a product " developed by NASA scientist" and we can pay a higher price ( for that which we funded to develop) at the checkout . Shalom
Interesting list, but not a single item came from manned space flights, it is all from basic research. We could have gotten all that and more for less money, if we had funded basic research and forgot about manned space flight.
I disagree that "NASA is the only government agency that actually earns its keep". The USGS has done valuable survey and geological research with a much smaller budget, the USPS has been paying its own way for nearly a century, and there are numerous other unsung departments doing invaluable lifesaving work on modest budgets.
The federal govt. having very limited powers to exercise, one must wonder how Congress gets away with taxing and spending on NASA. Of course the Feds will answer it is the same authority as the authority to invade Vietnam and Iraq since the United States somehow risked "armed invasion," i.e., defense.
Drawing lessons from history still requires comparing apples to apples.
1. The NASA of today is a contract management agency. The NASA of 1969 was an engineering agency.
2. For all of Rutan's considerable expertise and accomplishments, he remains a vain man who disparages the agency which provides the research. Ask Rutan how he plans to get into low Earth orbit or which agency is the source of research into composites, or how he plans to protect his tourist passengers from radiation exposure.
Space flight is expensive, risky and doesn't have a real commercial leg this side of payloads and maintenance. Putting tourists into suborbital ballistic shot flights is a stunt and a stunt that will eventually kill some of them. Systems fail at some probability and despite indemnity waivers, a legion of lawyers of the families of the wealthy passengers will step up to take the Virgin fortunes as well as Rutan's.
Do we need NASA? We need the NASA that was an engineering agency managed by the best engineers and not simply the best Beltway insiders. We need the NASA that prefabricated complex systems before giving industry the contracts to manufacture them as was done at Marshall Space Flight Center in the Sixties. We need teams that work together for a lifetime career with achievable but very hard goals.
We are going back to the Moon to stay. Why? It is the high ground and we cannot allow a global competitor to take that ground on unequal terms. One can argue the merits of the militarization of space in public, but in private it has always been the case. The Redstone, the Atlas and the Titan were not NASA boosters. They were short range and long range weapons systems carriers. The Saturn is the single instance of a purely civilian booster system and it was designed, prefabricated and managed by the former team from Peenemunde and Nordhausen led by Von Braun, Stuhlinger and Rudolph. Experience and team coherence are vital to the long range work required.
You will not get that from a one-off competition among low cost bidders. You have to grow that and it takes years. Rutan has a team and he now has deaths among his team. Welcome to the space program, Burt.
You make some reasonable points except the one about deaths on his team. That was an industrial accident; not a launch pad disaster.
Don't get me wrong -- to the families and friends I'm sure the distinction doesn't matter much. But industrial accidents happen at pencil manufacturing facilities as well, so I'm not sure that you can draw the parallel you like.
Bush decided to promote a return to the moon and manned mission to mars because: 1. He wanted a photo op "John Kennedy" moment. 2. He wanted to shovel more governement borrowed money to Houston Texas (friends there) and Cape Kennedy, Florida (for brother Jeb). 3. It was a distraction from his failed war plans. 4. The Chinese had put a man in orbit and were considering trying for the moon.
However, thanks to years of Republican fiscal mismanagement we now have over 8 trillion dollars in debt. A financial crisis is looming, when it hits all unnecessary government spending will be cut and taxes raised. Manned spaceflight simply isn't necessary, and the manned lunar/mars missions will be terminated.
Let the Chinese waste their money landing on the moon. They will soon find it is very expensive and there is no financial return on that costly investment. They will limit their space program to satellite launches and research.
Private ventures expect payback in months, not years or decades. In no way would the private sector pay for the development much less fund research needed to move forward in the space program. The funding of NASA is modest to say the very least - perhaps to a fault.
This story contains a host of oversimlifications. For one the space station would not exist at all without government underwriting. What commercial enterprise would invest the money required with almost no hope of a profit? In fact this is the central problem of the story, commercial enterprises have to see a profit particularly with the immense investment costs. Not mentioned are the commercial reoket companies that are having a real problem due to the sparsity of contracts to loft satellites. Finally, the current space tourist business is technically much simpler than putting someone into orbit and returning them. Until a commercial enterprise starts putting tourists and/or work crews into orbit private human space flight is just an inverted yo-yo.
We clearly needed NASA to get our space program started... just as we needed the government to "discover" the Americas, and explore the western territories.
Today, the commercial sector has the tools they need to go to space, and do things that will make them a profit, namely, space manufacturing, and R&D on profitable products, taking advantage of vacuum, microgravity and extreme temperatures that are best accessed in space.
Expecting the government to do all of our work is ridiculous. If we want something useful to come of space, WE need to do the work. (It should be noted that, though NASA inspired most of the products listed above, most of them were actually developed by contractors... commercial interests... not NASA itself.)
I agree with the suggestion that NASA should be the administrator of space activities. But it's time for the commercial sector to step up and enter the new territories, to make their fortunes on their own work, the same way they followed Lewis and Clark and developed the west.
Until we can take care of and provide for all Americans NASA is an ULTRA stupid imperialist, elitest idea.
Food, medical, and shelter for all first.
Besides NASA is simply part of the US out-of-control spending military. Condisering all branches of service, all intellegence agencies, foreign military bases (730+ and counting) The U.S. TOPS ONE TRILLION dollars a year.
American's are solid stoned. What other nation is so imperialistic and so militarily obsessed. I learned when I was 5 it was better to solve problems with words not clubs.
NASA is the space branch of the U.S. military. Wake up to the real priorities America! A proiority is not taking a close look at Pluto. That is just a waste.
A priority is providing insurance for children that have none.
$ 100 million Shuttle trips for "scientific experiments" by second-graders and carried out by their teacher-astronauts. EXACTLY how we should be spending our 17 billion dollars a year. NOT.
To all those out there who say "we need to keep exploring and thus we go to space:" Let's start by exploring our own planet first with our $17 billion, where the scientific findings are more relevant.
Yes! (Whoops! you forgot the un-manned side of NASA)
While the article made a number of very legitimate points relevant to the side of NASA involved in manned space missions, the increasingly relevant and important benefits arising from the un-manned side (Earth Science among many others) of the agency wasn't mentioned at all. Effective research (and advocacy of mitigating strategies) on global climate change issues, geoscience, and many other earth science topics of critical importance are conducted by the less well promoted un-manned side of the agency, which consumes a fraction of the manned side/space-travel budget. The Earth Sciences mission of NASA should therefore definitely be retained, with long overdue budget increases.
I can't believe that technologically literate adults are saying such things as I'm seeing in the commentaries, much less that Cnet chose to publish such a bone-head piece in the first place.
Never mind the future of humanity, the spirit of exploration, the possibilities of off-earth resources . . . you guys wouldn't understand the arguments anyway. So I'll keep it simple for you:
You may think: cut the $17bil from NASA, and we can educate kids, or feed the hungry, or house the homeless! Yeah, right . . . which planet did you say you live on???
Here's where that $17bil might ACTUALLY go, in order of probability: - 2 months of Iraq war! - tax breaks for already-bloated-with-profit corporations - tax breaks for the wealthy - bridges to nowhere islands off Alaska - paying off some of the Bush/Iraq national debt.
Yeah, sure, any of those things would be better ways to spend the money . . . whatever.
Tech that comes out of the PALTRY NASA research budget does more to help educate kids, feed the hungry, and house the homeless than ALL of the other government waste programs we pay for.
Is NASA worth $17 billion / year? That is the question, not about war, education, etc.
To me and many others here, NASA is an outdated agency without a clear agenda relevant to the problems on Planet Earth. Going to space is important, but keep going back just so we can have satellite feeds between Mrs. Smith the elementary school teacher and her class about their seedling experiment in zero gravity is just pure foolishness.
You mention nothing to support that NASA is worth $17 billion. If you think $17 billion is nothing, it will go on to fund 2.5 years of the S-CHIP children's medical coverage expansion that is in the current consideration.
Bridge to Nowhere has been scrapped, so that argument of yours is moot.
There are a lot of government waste, but just because they exist does not mean we can continue to look the other way. NASA is unfortunately one of those wastes right now. If they can come up with a more relevant agenda, I am listening (and still waiting for one).
Good that you mentioned money spent in Iraq: After all, except for those publicity stunts, most of the space shuttle "experiments" and "projects" in space are military top secret stuff, so if you are against money wasted in the military....look no further than NASA.
NASA has clealy lived past its relevance. Today, we have an administrator building "apollo on steroids." is that really the image we want our school kids to be thinking about? the current program is technically unsound and already heading out of control budget and schedule-wise.
its time to break up NASA. when kids find xbox and iphone more exciting that anything nasa is contemplating, we know that we have the wrong plan for the future.
Those who support the war in Iraq need the clinic. Those who support NASA and space exploration are the only real humans in existence. You know, the ones who really are curious about what's out there. If it weren't for people like that, civilization as we know it would have never been founded because humans would have never made it out of Africa.
Of course NASA is needed! There are tons of reasons as to why we need them. They are the ones that regulate and maintain our space travel. Space travel is need for so many things, in which, some of those things have not even been discovered as of yet. Medical reasons ? we are finding that we can work in many medical facets in order to slow down the production of cancer and other physical and genetic ailments. I am not sure that the public realizes how much research NASA is truly involved in when it comes to our national defense systems, storm tracking, geological sciences, cosmic scientific solutions, expanded communications and so on. Not only does NASA work with the human sciences but as well with the agricultural sciences. Yes?it is A LOT of money being spent but I do think that we need to take another look at things when are taxes go towards the presidential security, over-expenses being paid out for hotel, travel, car rental, boat/yacht rentals. Let?s not get into or attack other government related fundings as well or should we? Also, I wonder what makes the people of this country think that just because we cancel the NASA program that the money currently being spent on them will not be routed to another government agency or program that is definitely of less importance. Getting rid of NASA will be one of the other biggest mistakes that this country can make.
Yes, Declan, we need NASA. It serves as a rallying point, and signpost in the road of where to go. It also endorses the science, and gives the private industry a standard to work to.
It also inspires many of the dreamers of new technologies like myself. After all, I'd like to see my product on the Space Shuttle, space station, or Mars Ship as we discussed in Florida. :-)
The Federal Government is pouring billions into a hole in the ground in NY and they want to stop space exploration so we can have a bunch of DHS employees guarding the door guards, the cops and the secret service at the Waldorf?
Good lord, every boom cycle brings forward a bunch of dunces in management ranks and the IQ differential is getting way out of whack. Give up NASA, hey why don't we all just cut off our own heads! and stop thinking completely!
Another idea by a bunch of some really dumb Bankers that think Google is technology.
Because of its preoccupation with manned space flight NASA vague objectives has a terrible record in wasted money and lost lives. They are still relying on the Russians for help A new agency is needed with clear objectives withnew ideas and fresh investment so that progress can be monitored by congres and, via the media, our tax paying electorate
Otherwise space will end up going to the greediest conglomerate. They will patent everything to make a buck. Corporations who have shareholders to worry about can not be trusted to do what is right for this country and humanity as a whole. They would sell their mothers for a buck.
This is the same as with net neutrality. We need the net to be open and fair otherwise the richest handle of companies will have control over everything and the smaller companies and businesses as well as the publics own web sites will be shut out. This like with no NASA is a bad thing. Greed is a bad thing.
You know I thought as a tax payer I would get some respect by NASA as presenting a new concept to NASA to review.
I mean it probably would take 1 person .5 hours to review the material and you would think an agency who task is to be innovative would welcome fresh new ideas from the tax payers footing the bill. NASA said they dont have the time or money to look at any ideas submitted. I find this apprenhensable and unexceptable as a tax payer.
But the truth of the matter is NASA thinks they are GODS and can get away with anything including not investigating new ideas.
I think NASA management is to blame and the great scientist and employees at NASA are stymied by management.
I think NASA should be privatized and the scientist at NASA should be allowed to pursue research ideas that differ from managment idealogs.
Many private independent companies and ideas are starting to flourish for one reason, NASA is NOT innovative enough. Something I totally lay at the doorstep of management and NOT the employees.
I submitted ideas to several NASA dept's with returned comment of we cannot evalute external, not invented here ideas.
This "Do we need" question is rather superfluous. If (Big IF)the US was all alone on this big ship EARTH, the question may have some merit, but since there's a heck of a competition building up (aside from the former formidable opponent USSR) NASA must continue. Secondly Taxpayers money has indirectly been paid back 100fold, due to the technology boost NASA triggered. There are at least 100 good reasons, why NASA, ESA, etc. must be able to continue with a bigger budget.
My questions is: Do we need to spend 500-600 Billion US$ (taxpayers!) on the military, NSA, CIA, ec., etc.? Of course we need to spend money on the military, security and so on, but does it have to be more than half a trillion???
We need NASA, period. Whoever says differently is plain stupid. Pardon my french... :) Good Night and Good Luck, America.
Using Microsoft Office I have created a Commemorative postcard available online at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Docs/Sputnik50_Postcard_A3259.doc" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Docs/Sputnik50_Postcard_A3259.doc</a>
Everybody can download this template file and use it for non-commercial purpose: it?s free for all. The postcard will be available for download starting midnight October 3rd, 2007. You can also preview the image on the front page at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Custom_Images/Sputnik50_Postcard.jpg" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Custom_Images/Sputnik50_Postcard.jpg</a>
In addition to this, the slide show of the old Soviet Space exploration Post stamps is available at (warning for viewers: folks, beware of commie propaganda embedded in that old stamps of Soviet era): <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Photos.aspx?AlbumID=7" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Photos.aspx?AlbumID=7</a> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Details.aspx?AlbumID=7" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Details.aspx?AlbumID=7</a>
Manage updates with the Download App
NASA may need to change becomming more intergarated and usful But without NASA a good amount of Drive would dissapaer which would be a great engineering loss.
One important reason Nasa should stay is that space colonisation and using the earth better as a resource are very similar pursutes.
This is an area which over the comming 50-100 i think will excel and could easily be worth a lot more than the investment into NASA allowing for even greater fuiture oppertunity for going to space but it will take time.
I hope some more peps add their view here as to the question of NASA because i feel it's a top question to ask and think about.
While the private sector can be as inventive as NASA. I think the motivation usually drives the research. NASA doesn't need to turn a profit. Thus they will research areas not profitable to the private sector.
So asking "Do we still need NASA?", is the same as asking do we still need Oxygen.
I understand NASA spent millions of dollars developing pens that would write in zero gravity, while the Russians gave their cosmonauts pencils.
I don't think the cost is worth the benefit.
Did we get to the moon, or would the crew have died on the way?
What is stopping us from returning to the moon? Many posts have been talking about NASA's research and design ingenuity and yet we can't go to the moon again.
I'm not convinced we can send a monkey or robot even. Probably not even an American Idol contestant (although I would be happy to try again and again).
Maybe that should be the next prize offer. Get something live, anything, to the moon and back. At least now it will be verifiable.
Isn't that what we expect of scientific experiments? Of publicity stunts and government announcements we expect very little - a few seconds and then a change of channel - but this wasn't one of those was it???
We could have all those spinoffs at a far lower cost if we funded basic research and dropped manned flights.
I am not against private enterprise, but lets remember that human greed is the worst human emotion of all and money greedy bastards need to be highly regulated and ultimately controlled by the government. Can you imagine what privatizing the Police and Fire Depts of this country would do to the general welfare?
We need a balance between the gov and private business, with the gov regulating.
If some aspects of space travel and/or exploration can be done better by private companies, why not? For NASA to play dog in the manger and suppress competition is beyond petty, and ends up costing the taxpayers billions.
You forgot to include Halliburton. Kos will takeaway your moonbat license if he found out.
Seriously, dude, chill out and turn the news off every once in a while. To inject Diebold and Blackwater into this topic tells me you are WAY too pre-occupied with politics.
Even the "space tourism" industry will sputter and die, once the handful of billionaires have "been there done that".
And yes, I realize that's a matter of semantics. But still, I think their very name holds the key for NASA's future. Right now what we need most is not a socialized freight company or government organized lunar prospecting. What we need is an unbiased organization who can regulate space pollution, enforce safety standards, and coordinate R&D. Its great that NASA has spent so many years doing this work, but now they need to take that experience and channel it toward helping others do what they've done.
With rocketry, the margins for improvement are razor-thin. We are at the limits of efficiency for chemically-fueled rockets and, as such, improvements are won at frightening cost. This makes it almost impossible for private industry to take over NASA's role, the capital requirements are just too great given the current return on investment. Sure, it's possible to fly space tourists on sub-orbital flights lasting a few minutes, but this is not the stuff of which a space-faring society is built.
Like it or not, we need NASA. Now as for making NASA do a better job of it, well, that's a different kettle of fish.
Structural Analysis/CAD software (Buy a car lately?)
Modern enriched baby food, athletic shoes, scratch-resistant lenses, water purification systems, shock absorbing helmets, smoke detectors, dustbusters, flat panel displays, high density batteries, anti-fog ski goggles, sports bras (Yay!) quartz crystal timing equip.
Solar energy, improved weather forcasting, forest management, environmental control sensors, telemetry systems, fire resistant materials, radiation insulation, pollution measuring devices, air purification systems.
Programmable pacemakers, ocular screening, laser angioplasty, breast cancer detection, voice controlled wheelchairs, ultrasound scanners, insulin pumps, MRI.
Magnetic liquids, engine lubricants, microlasers.
Radiation detectors, emergency rescue cutters, SCBA for firemen, self righting life rafts, doppler radar, corrosion protection clothing.
Studless winter tires, better brakes, improved aircraft engines, advanced lubricants, improved school bus design.
There's a lot more! How about just for fun, we double NASA's budget (Still a tiny drop in the buckt...) I think if you look at it really hard, you'l realize that NASA has contributed more to healthcare, education, and environemental stewardship than ALL of the governement agencies designed specifically to support those very things, and we spend millions and billions MORE on those other, less capabable agencies.
Myself and a group of 3 other engineering students invented the photo-electric smoke detector in 1972 at Carleton University in Ottawa.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://movementarian.com/2006/09/11/urban-legends-of-nasa-what-they-did-not-invent/" target="_newWindow">http://movementarian.com/2006/09/11/urban-legends-of-nasa-what-they-did-not-invent/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25spin.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25spin.html</a>
A second way to think about it is: What else would have been invented if hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) were not taken from private industry and handed to a government agency?
A third way: NASA's budget is something like $17 billion a year. What spinoffs that you list happened in the last 10 years? "Improved school bus design?" Huh?
A fourth way: If you're right that NASA is so profligate in its research, it can pay its own way by charging private industry research fees and perhaps no longer needs tax dollars.
But I'm intrigued as to how NASA developed studless winter tires - I thought they landed in Florida and California so they wouldn't need snow tires.
Can you tell me which NASA Civil Servant invented, or even significantly advanced CAD software? I work closely with Parametric Technology, and I assure you, they are aware of no such civil servant.
If you mean NASA dollars allowed these advancements to take place then your arguement is a little better. And in a way then you support the CNET article "Do We Need NASA?".
The article doesn't suggest that space exploration (or the money that funds the advancements you list ad nauseum) be terminated. Only that perhaps it should be taken largely out of the hands of civil servants. The Agency is bloated with self perpetuating and self serving. Think about - most center directors now stop off at NASA on the way to a much higher paying job. They are unlikely to commit to risk and innovation.
ruining freedom, NASA is a refreshing example of what
government really should be about. Frankly, NASA has made most
lives better in ways people never realize.
My tax money goes many places, but NASA is the kind of place I
really like to see it go.
I disagree that "NASA is the only government agency that actually earns its keep". The USGS has done valuable survey and geological research with a much smaller budget, the USPS has been paying its own way for nearly a century, and there are numerous other unsung departments doing invaluable lifesaving work on modest budgets.
1. The NASA of today is a contract management agency. The NASA of 1969 was an engineering agency.
2. For all of Rutan's considerable expertise and accomplishments, he remains a vain man who disparages the agency which provides the research. Ask Rutan how he plans to get into low Earth orbit or which agency is the source of research into composites, or how he plans to protect his tourist passengers from radiation exposure.
Space flight is expensive, risky and doesn't have a real commercial leg this side of payloads and maintenance. Putting tourists into suborbital ballistic shot flights is a stunt and a stunt that will eventually kill some of them. Systems fail at some probability and despite indemnity waivers, a legion of lawyers of the families of the wealthy passengers will step up to take the Virgin fortunes as well as Rutan's.
Do we need NASA? We need the NASA that was an engineering agency managed by the best engineers and not simply the best Beltway insiders. We need the NASA that prefabricated complex systems before giving industry the contracts to manufacture them as was done at Marshall Space Flight Center in the Sixties. We need teams that work together for a lifetime career with achievable but very hard goals.
We are going back to the Moon to stay. Why? It is the high ground and we cannot allow a global competitor to take that ground on unequal terms. One can argue the merits of the militarization of space in public, but in private it has always been the case. The Redstone, the Atlas and the Titan were not NASA boosters. They were short range and long range weapons systems carriers. The Saturn is the single instance of a purely civilian booster system and it was designed, prefabricated and managed by the former team from Peenemunde and Nordhausen led by Von Braun, Stuhlinger and Rudolph. Experience and team coherence are vital to the long range work required.
You will not get that from a one-off competition among low cost bidders. You have to grow that and it takes years. Rutan has a team and he now has deaths among his team. Welcome to the space program, Burt.
Don't get me wrong -- to the families and friends I'm sure the distinction doesn't matter much. But industrial accidents happen at pencil manufacturing facilities as well, so I'm not sure that you can draw the parallel you like.
1. He wanted a photo op "John Kennedy" moment.
2. He wanted to shovel more governement borrowed money to Houston Texas (friends there) and Cape Kennedy, Florida (for brother Jeb).
3. It was a distraction from his failed war plans.
4. The Chinese had put a man in orbit and were considering trying for the moon.
However, thanks to years of Republican fiscal mismanagement we now have over 8 trillion dollars in debt. A financial crisis is looming, when it hits all unnecessary government spending will be cut and taxes raised. Manned spaceflight simply isn't necessary, and the manned lunar/mars missions will be terminated.
Let the Chinese waste their money landing on the moon. They will soon find it is very expensive and there is no financial return on that costly investment. They will limit their space program to satellite launches and research.
Today, the commercial sector has the tools they need to go to space, and do things that will make them a profit, namely, space manufacturing, and R&D on profitable products, taking advantage of vacuum, microgravity and extreme temperatures that are best accessed in space.
Expecting the government to do all of our work is ridiculous. If we want something useful to come of space, WE need to do the work. (It should be noted that, though NASA inspired most of the products listed above, most of them were actually developed by contractors... commercial interests... not NASA itself.)
I agree with the suggestion that NASA should be the administrator of space activities. But it's time for the commercial sector to step up and enter the new territories, to make their fortunes on their own work, the same way they followed Lewis and Clark and developed the west.
Food, medical, and shelter for all first.
Besides NASA is simply part of the US out-of-control spending military. Condisering all branches of service, all intellegence agencies, foreign military bases (730+ and counting) The U.S. TOPS ONE TRILLION dollars a year.
American's are solid stoned. What other nation is so imperialistic and so militarily obsessed. I learned when I was 5 it was better to solve problems with words not clubs.
NASA is the space branch of the U.S. military. Wake up to the real priorities America! A proiority is not taking a close look at Pluto. That is just a waste.
A priority is providing insurance for children that have none.
To all those out there who say "we need to keep exploring and thus we go to space:" Let's start by exploring our own planet first with our $17 billion, where the scientific findings are more relevant.
Among other things.
things as I'm seeing in the commentaries, much less that Cnet
chose to publish such a bone-head piece in the first place.
Never mind the future of humanity, the spirit of exploration, the
possibilities of off-earth resources . . . you guys wouldn't
understand the arguments anyway. So I'll keep it simple for you:
You may think: cut the $17bil from NASA, and we can educate
kids, or feed the hungry, or house the homeless! Yeah, right . . .
which planet did you say you live on???
Here's where that $17bil might ACTUALLY go, in order of
probability:
- 2 months of Iraq war!
- tax breaks for already-bloated-with-profit corporations
- tax breaks for the wealthy
- bridges to nowhere islands off Alaska
- paying off some of the Bush/Iraq national debt.
Yeah, sure, any of those things would be better ways to spend
the money . . . whatever.
Tech that comes out of the PALTRY NASA research budget does more to help educate kids, feed the hungry, and house the homeless than ALL of the other government waste programs we pay for.
To me and many others here, NASA is an outdated agency without a clear agenda relevant to the problems on Planet Earth. Going to space is important, but keep going back just so we can have satellite feeds between Mrs. Smith the elementary school teacher and her class about their seedling experiment in zero gravity is just pure foolishness.
You mention nothing to support that NASA is worth $17 billion. If you think $17 billion is nothing, it will go on to fund 2.5 years of the S-CHIP children's medical coverage expansion that is in the current consideration.
Bridge to Nowhere has been scrapped, so that argument of yours is moot.
There are a lot of government waste, but just because they exist does not mean we can continue to look the other way. NASA is unfortunately one of those wastes right now. If they can come up with a more relevant agenda, I am listening (and still waiting for one).
Good that you mentioned money spent in Iraq: After all, except for those publicity stunts, most of the space shuttle "experiments" and "projects" in space are military top secret stuff, so if you are against money wasted in the military....look no further than NASA.
its time to break up NASA. when kids find xbox and iphone more exciting that anything nasa is contemplating, we know that we have the wrong plan for the future.
DUH! We American's as a nation are growing more stupid by the minute.
Yeah, but it so important to understand that glimmer of light that happened 200 billion years ago.
STUPID NASA
Those that support NASA need a drug rehab clinic.
micro nukes make a lot of sense in both areas.
Technology that exits in space flight and exploration could be used in part for alternative energy generation.
Those who forget what came from nasa deserve to live in the dark ages.
Hmmm... can't think of it off hand....
COUGH!(nasa)
Medical reasons ? we are finding that we can work in many medical facets in order to slow down the production of cancer and other physical and genetic ailments.
I am not sure that the public realizes how much research NASA is truly involved in when it comes to our national defense systems, storm tracking, geological sciences, cosmic scientific solutions, expanded communications and so on.
Not only does NASA work with the human sciences but as well with the agricultural sciences. Yes?it is A LOT of money being spent but I do think that we need to take another look at things when are taxes go towards the presidential security, over-expenses being paid out for hotel, travel, car rental, boat/yacht rentals. Let?s not get into or attack other government related fundings as well or should we?
Also, I wonder what makes the people of this country think that just because we cancel the NASA program that the money currently being spent on them will not be routed to another government agency or program that is definitely of less importance.
Getting rid of NASA will be one of the other biggest mistakes that this country can make.
It also inspires many of the dreamers of new technologies like myself.
After all, I'd like to see my product on the Space Shuttle, space station, or Mars Ship as we discussed in Florida.
:-)
The Federal Government is pouring billions into a hole in the ground in NY and they want to stop space exploration so we can have a bunch of DHS employees guarding the door guards, the cops and the secret service at the Waldorf?
Good lord, every boom cycle brings forward a bunch of dunces in management ranks and the IQ differential is getting way out of whack. Give up NASA, hey why don't we all just cut off our own heads! and stop thinking completely!
Another idea by a bunch of some really dumb Bankers that think Google is technology.
monitored by congres and, via the media, our tax paying electorate
This is the same as with net neutrality. We need the net to be open and fair otherwise the richest handle of companies will have control over everything and the smaller companies and businesses as well as the publics own web sites will be shut out. This like with no NASA is a bad thing. Greed is a bad thing.
Robert
I mean it probably would take 1 person .5 hours to review the material and you would think an agency who task is to be innovative would welcome fresh new ideas from the tax payers footing the bill. NASA said they dont have the time or money to look at any ideas submitted. I find this
apprenhensable and unexceptable as a tax payer.
But the truth of the matter is NASA thinks they are GODS and can get away with anything including not investigating new ideas.
I think NASA management is to blame and the great scientist and employees at NASA are stymied by management.
I think NASA should be privatized and the scientist at NASA should be allowed to pursue research ideas that differ from managment idealogs.
Many private independent companies and ideas are starting to flourish for one reason, NASA is NOT innovative enough. Something I totally lay at the doorstep of management and NOT the employees.
I submitted ideas to several NASA dept's with returned comment of we cannot evalute external, not invented here ideas.
here is the website.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://nlspropulsion.net" target="_newWindow">http://nlspropulsion.net</a>
Dissolve NASA and let the funds go to private and NASA employees who want to start their own space companies.
I thinks it time for Americans to evaluate whether we want this neposism by NASA to continue effecting the future of all Americans.
Secondly Taxpayers money has indirectly been paid back 100fold, due to the technology boost NASA triggered.
There are at least 100 good reasons, why NASA, ESA, etc. must be able to continue with a bigger budget.
My questions is: Do we need to spend 500-600 Billion US$ (taxpayers!) on the military, NSA, CIA, ec., etc.? Of course we need to spend money on the military, security and so on, but does it have to be more than half a trillion???
We need NASA, period. Whoever says differently is plain stupid. Pardon my french... :)
Good Night and Good Luck, America.
Everybody can download this template file and use it for non-commercial purpose: it?s free for all. The postcard will be available for download starting midnight October 3rd, 2007.
You can also preview the image on the front page at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Custom_Images/Sputnik50_Postcard.jpg" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Custom_Images/Sputnik50_Postcard.jpg</a>
In addition to this, the slide show of the old Soviet Space exploration Post stamps is available at (warning for viewers: folks, beware of commie propaganda embedded in that old stamps of Soviet era):
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Photos.aspx?AlbumID=7" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Photos.aspx?AlbumID=7</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.alexanderbell.us/Details.aspx?AlbumID=7" target="_newWindow">http://www.alexanderbell.us/Details.aspx?AlbumID=7</a>