SHOULD USA STOP FUNDING NASA and SPACE exploration?
443551
Satalites have helped make the society we have today possible:  \n1. We broadcast live around the world. \n2. We spy with satalites and I would hate to see space war technology develope elsewhere but not in USA.  \n3. We can study the earth in space in ways we can't on the ground, (a birds eye view so to speak.)\n4. Things with which others can explain.\n\nNASA and Space exploration may be able to detect an asteroid or comet that may strike the earth.  Something most certainly did in Siberia in 1908.  I would not go by any event that happened 65 million years age, but 1908 isn't so long age.  We were so lucky then.  If something like that happens over New York, 10 million people will be killed.  If it happens over the ocean, the title wave will probably compare to the one in 2004.\n\nColonizing space, the moon and/or Mars may prove to be invaluable in the future.  It is proving difficult to clean up this Earth after we messed it up so bad.  We could start over.  (if you care about future generations.)\n\nWe are a species that need to test it's limits.  That is why Stonehedge and the pyramids were built.  We need self esteem as a species.  We will concider our selves disapointments if we don't do that which we are capbable.
771198
Taking your points in order, and then answering the question:\nIf there were nothing in space, then there is no Moon, no planets, no Sun.  Absurd.\nWhile some planets, such as Jupiter, have poisonous gases, others do not.  Poisonous to us does not, of course, necessarily mean poisonous to other life forms.  Check out, for example, anaerobic bacteria, terrestrial life forms which find oxygen a deadly poisonous gas.\nIf we had all the resources we need on Earth, we would not be running low on oil, silver (no new sources found in over 80 years), and many others in short supply.  And even if we have not run out yet, necessarily we will eventually run out so long as we live on a finite planet.  Isaac Asimov calculated we would run out of most resouces by the year 2500.\nWhile the budget for NASA runs around $8-10 billion per year (depending on the year you look at), there is already an economy derived from space which exceeds that amount.  This includes spin off consumer products such as home computers and live television broadcasts from around the world as well as vastly improved weather forecasting.  Resource satellites have been used to find mineral desposits.  And private industry such as Bigelow is now moving into space, so that the government's seed money is functioning much like the seed money that was used to pay for the Lewis and Clark expedition 201 years ago.  That is, the government having proved it is possible, the citizenry moves in and exploits it, with the government raking off taxes.
60403
Each satellites owner pays for their own.  THere is no insurance against it.  And it is very unlikely because of howmuch space there is out there.
125071
NASA was started in the '50's to get the USA in the 'Space Race' - the Soviet Union (USA's arch-nemisis at the time) had launchest THE FIRST satellite ever. The USA felt embarrased and needed to show them up. \n\nNASA and the 'money wasted' is responsible for quite a few modern conveniences, from CAT scans to industrial processes and materials, to cordless power tools, etc.\n\nIt is money well spent!
384530
Yes we should. Unfortunately our government makes it's money off thing such as oil, cars, and other things not good for this planet or it's inhabitants.
283078
Isuues to be dealt with:\n#1 Leaving too soon will leave a power vacuum that will be filled with those who we will be fighting in the future.\n#2 The United States is easy to blame for every poor man's woes and those that would have power over others use it to their advantage.\n#3 There are significant cultural differences between MiddleEastern and Western nations that are/will be very very hard to resolve.\n#4 Isreal.\n\nThe answer?  Pour as much money as possible into space development, exploration, and colonization so we can escape this ever-shrinking planet and have the vacuum of space as a bufferzone like the oceans used to be.
1072478
Privatization would save NASA money. I'm not sure if their current infrastructure has a branch to handle the business that would be involved so that would be a concern. Overall, I believe privatization would be great for technological development. There would be several companies doing their own research and development that could expound on our current state of technology faster than NASA could on its own. It would add the element of technological diversification.
907818
Of course not. NASA spent billions of dollars on styrofoam rockets and plastic movie sets. And Congress let them.
983163
It's a lot cheaper to explore our planet, and the goal of most exploration was to find something of value, usually funded by royalty.\n\nRoyalty isn't what it used to be, and any government whose people believe that taxes are bad will never be able to sustain the costs of exploration of space. It's an expensive proposition.\n\nOur equivalent of royalty, celebrities, tend to spend their money on themselves or on things they can see the immediate results of. No long-term no-return (emotional, financial or career) causes for them.
1162676
do you live in the USA? well i think that we should take care of our own first unlike what we currently do! we need to stop spending billions upon billions of American dollars over seas and our space projects and take care of home first ..... then worry about everything else..... the USA should not have a homless population muchless starving familes!
1116878
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
1053863
NASA had some long term plans in that direction, but the Republicans canceled their budget, so I think the only serious efforts in that direction currently would be in the form of Taoist hermits, and possibly the Boy Scouts.
633362
Yes.  But only if the amount of resources we can get continue to increase.  If we can develop robust space industry this will not be a problem.
238482
In January 2004 President Bush announced his plan to send Americans back to the moon and onto Mars. Those bold goals—which NASA estimates it could achieve by 2018 and 2030, respectively—would at last free the nation of the 25-year drudgery of the shuttle program. The idea raised eyebrows--not least because of its price tag, distant target dates and suspicious initial timing, at the start of the 2004 election cycle. In the two years since, however, funding has been forthcoming and design work has begun, with aerodynamic testing on scale models under way at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. While political and fiscal obstacles could still scuttle the whole plan, the ships taking shape in the NASA labs are winning deserved raves.\n\nThe thing that has made the shuttles such lethal disappointments is that they have tried to do too many things--fly like a spacecraft, land like an airplane, haul cargo like a truck. Part of the reason the Apollo ships succeeded was that they had an exceedingly clear goal: to fly to the moon and strictly obey the laws of simplicity and safety on the way. Both ships were also wisely mounted at the top of the booster that lifted them off the ground--keeping them away from the fire and foam that killed Challenger and Columbia.\n\nThe new ships will follow the old rules. The centerpiece of the stack will be the prosaically named Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), a descendant of the Apollo command module but for a few significant differences. For one thing, it will be bigger, able to carry four astronauts comfortably and six a bit more snugly--twice the load of the three-man Apollos.\n\nFor another thing, it will be equipped with solar panels, a sensible addition in a sun-drenched place like the inner solar system--and one that reduces the demands on fuel cells and batteries. It will also be able to either splash down in the water as the Apollos did or thump down under a parachute on dry desert. Finally, modern composite materials and computers will improve on the ungainly weight and clanking brain of the older ships. "It's like comparing today's 737s with the ones that flew in 1967," says Scott Horowitz, an associate administrator for NASA. "Put them side by side, and they look alike. But they're entirely different aircraft."\n\nThe new lunar lander will be similarly improved, with updated electronics and materials. It too will be a larger ship than its predecessor, big enough to carry all four astronauts down to the surface while the mother ship idles empty in lunar orbit. That not only gets the most bang for the exploratory buck but also eliminates the lonely specter of the single astronaut who used to be left to mind the orbiter while the others went prospecting below.
278220
If we knew what we were doing, then it wouldn't be call research, would it?    -- Albert Einstein\n\nSpace research helps us to understand what is around us. We have gathered great knowledge (transistor radio to computer technology (don't knock it... you're using it now)). I don't know what the opposition would have as an argument except for the astronauts who WILLINGLY gave their lives for the greater good. They understand the risks and still jump for the opportunity to participate due to its findings.\nI believe space exploration is beneficial and should continue.
1013886
space exploration is being slowed down, but not for reasons of the deficit.  the amount that is spent per year as a percentage of the amount spent the previous year on space exploration has been less than 100% for over a decade.\n\nthe biggest amount of deficit spending is done on the military.  hundreds of billions for the military compared to a few billion (if that) for space exploration -- and that includes ground based, satellite, probes and manned.  if you want to turn off the deficit, you have to turn off the biggest leak.  space exploration is not it.
468087
I think it's the human desire of finding out the mysteries of our world and beyond. Not only that, there are the advances in science that come about from space research. eg teflon, satellite communications.\n\nThere will always be a need to help some group of people, but that also doesn't mean that we should stop everything else.\n\nPutting it another way, I guess one could say "why should you spend your money at the cinema, on a book on candy or anything else not essential to surviving when there are poor people starving in the world?"