Should NASA's budget be increased?

[Rooney]

Oh God no! NASA should be eliminated and space exploration privatized. The government monopoly on space travel needs to be ended. NASA is a government backed monopoly which stifles scientific and technological advancement. For example, in 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could deliver a permanent manned moon base. Several private sector firms said that it could be done if NASA was not involved. Immediately NASA claimed that a moon base was not feasible and the idea was scuttled. This is not progress or scientific thinking.

There is a great market for privatized space exploration and study despite the fact that it seems out of Jules Verne. NASA refused to work when the government shutdown occurred in 2013. Thus, it appears the future can be put on hold if it is government run. While NASA scientists threw a fit about the shutdown a private company launched a rocket. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon spacecraft launched without a dime from the government. NASA demanded more money while the private sector simply did its job. While the private companies did benefit from prior NASA technology the fact that they could build a rocket themselves and launch it is a testament to the market for privatized space travel.   

As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be made toward inexpensive manned space travel.

[politicallefty]

Yes, I think the budget should be substantially increased. However, the mission of NASA as a whole should be changed. I'd start with significant private-public partnerships between NASA and the private sector. I don't think the private sector can really exist without the government. However, NASA would be a far better agency with an altered mission and a strongly supportive private sector.

I'd rather NASA change its mission to look towards permanent settlements (such as Mars within the next 15-20 years) and places where scientific knowledge can have significant growth. There is a huge potential for the discovery of life. We need to seriously explore Titan and launch a mission to explore Europa's probable subsurface ocean.

[Del Tachi]

Yes, but only on the condition that more of NASA's vital functions are relocated to the Stennis Space Center

[Deus Naturae]

I don't think the private sector can really exist without the government.

Are you talking about private sector space exploration/research or just in general? Because I fail to see how the aforementioned private sector industry would cease to exist without NASA.

[politicallefty]

Are you talking about private sector space exploration/research or just in general? Because I fail to see how the aforementioned private sector industry would cease to exist without NASA.

Sorry that I was unclear. I was, of course, referring to the private sector when it comes to space. I think NASA and other government agencies are vital to ensuring that private space exploration sector exists. It's not that I believe NASA is necessarily vital to ensuring that space exploration and research happens. However, I do not believe the free market alone is anywhere near enough to sustain such an industry. As I said above, NASA's mission should be changed and public-private partnerships should be heavily pursued. We need both government and the private sector if we're going to take humanity beyond Earth (let alone discover life on other worlds).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A large amount -probably the majority- of what NASA does is earth related, both in terms of satellite remote sensing and aeronautics research.

[SteveRogers]

Oh God no! NASA should be eliminated and space exploration privatized. The government monopoly on space travel needs to be ended. NASA is a government backed monopoly which stifles scientific and technological advancement. For example, in 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could deliver a permanent manned moon base. Several private sector firms said that it could be done if NASA was not involved. Immediately NASA claimed that a moon base was not feasible and the idea was scuttled. This is not progress or scientific thinking.

There is a great market for privatized space exploration and study despite the fact that it seems out of Jules Verne. NASA refused to work when the government shutdown occurred in 2013. Thus, it appears the future can be put on hold if it is government run. While NASA scientists threw a fit about the shutdown a private company launched a rocket. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon spacecraft launched without a dime from the government. NASA demanded more money while the private sector simply did its job. While the private companies did benefit from prior NASA technology the fact that they could build a rocket themselves and launch it is a testament to the market for privatized space travel.   

As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be made toward inexpensive manned space travel.

But space exploration is privatized. You just gave a great example of the burgeoning private spaceflight industry. SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and the others are making fascinating inroads. Now give a concrete example of how NASA is stifling them. The fact that the ISS exists has nothing to do with why there aren't any private space stations. There aren't any private space stations because constructing one would be really, really expensive and no private corporation has yet seen fit to spend the money because there isn't an obvious business application that would justify the cost.

Going to the moon. Putting a full-time manned laboratory in orbit. The Hubble telescope. Mars rovers. While all great advances in science and technology and the development of the human race in general, none of these things were exactly profitable. It's great that private spaceflight is finally advancing, but for the foreseeable future those companies' efforts will be focused on suborbital and eventually orbital flight. We still need NASA to do the actual exploring.

That being said, NASA's mission needs to be redefined, especially with regards to the manned spaceflight component. If we're going to ask astronauts to put their lives at extreme risk, it should at least be in pursuit of a real goal. Let's go someplace cool again.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Maybe, but we've got bigger issues right now.  Besides, we need to consider privatizing NASA.

[Sol]

snip

In some words, yes - the entirety of government is spending each other's money (or not) to fulfill our own highly subjective dreams and ideals about society. And I did mention the myriad innovations that come either directly from or by way of NASA, like freeze-dried food and cochlear implants.

Furthermore, AD, the moon landing came after the Great Society.

NASA doesn't justify its costs.

So who are you a sock of again?

I know it's rhetorical, but he really does strike me as Opebo in disguise.

[MurrayBannerman]

Yes. Any other answer is wrong.

[MurrayBannerman]

Oh God no! NASA should be eliminated and space exploration privatized. The government monopoly on space travel needs to be ended. NASA is a government backed monopoly which stifles scientific and technological advancement. For example, in 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could deliver a permanent manned moon base. Several private sector firms said that it could be done if NASA was not involved. Immediately NASA claimed that a moon base was not feasible and the idea was scuttled. This is not progress or scientific thinking.

There is a great market for privatized space exploration and study despite the fact that it seems out of Jules Verne. NASA refused to work when the government shutdown occurred in 2013. Thus, it appears the future can be put on hold if it is government run. While NASA scientists threw a fit about the shutdown a private company launched a rocket. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon spacecraft launched without a dime from the government. NASA demanded more money while the private sector simply did its job. While the private companies did benefit from prior NASA technology the fact that they could build a rocket themselves and launch it is a testament to the market for privatized space travel.   

As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be made toward inexpensive manned space travel.

NASA doesn't make anything anymore. They just do the flights and research. So space travel is partially privatized.

[Napoleon]

snip

In some words, yes - the entirety of government is spending each other's money (or not) to fulfill our own highly subjective dreams and ideals about society. And I did mention the myriad innovations that come either directly from or by way of NASA, like freeze-dried food and cochlear implants.

Furthermore, AD, the moon landing came after the Great Society.

NASA doesn't justify its costs.

So who are you a sock of again?

I know it's rhetorical, but he really does strike me as Opebo in disguise.

How so?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

As a more concise answer, NASA will probably have to be sacrificed for the sake of concessions to the Republicans so they don't cut Social Security or Civil Rights or something. NASA's functions themselves are quickly being taken over by private corporations and are continuing to be marginalized. It may just be necessary to take the corpse behind the barn.

Also, I am not Opebo. While I can only go off of history, joining after he was banned, we are essentially political opposites and don't really share anything. Honestly, Napoleon and Alfred share more attributes with him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Increase, duh. Just think, we could have sent humans to Mars for less than the cost of the Iraq war.