Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
You couldn't be more wrong... and you've obviously missed the entire point of this thread. Saying NASA does nothing but provide pretty pictures is downright ****ing insulting. An expensive luxury? Just because you can't personally experience the manned mission to Mars? JFC.
What do you think NASA really costs?
A study has shown that many people incorrectly assume NASA’s budget is 20% of the total US budget. In reality, funding for NASA is only represents 0.6%. The entire history of NASA does not add up to the amount spent on the military in a single year.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba.../#.UhQpk5K1GkB
Interactive version with more info: http://public.tableausoftware.com/vi...g/USPriorities
In 2010, Americans spent just as much money on pet food, as they did NASA's annual federal budget. Think about that..
And NASA creates jobs too.. |
0.6% of the budget is a whole heck of a lot higher than I would of anticipated; with that big of a chunk of the budget, it is a relative boondoggle of a program when you get down to it. That is a HUGE percentage of the budget when you consider how many programs are competing for a piece of the budget pie. You look at that percentage and think it is underfunded because you personally value it so much, but I doubt that you've ever really had to look at a large overall budget before (I may be mistaken in that). NASA should have its budget whacked; the privitization of space exploration will result in much more effective results. NASA laid a lot of groundwork--it was crucial for where we are now, but we are no longer in the mid 60s. Good things still come out of it and that is why I don't advocate for abolishing it completely. Give the reigns over to guys like Elon Musk and use the money for other emergent scientific disciplines. Cut it by 2/3rds and split the money between the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Health; you'll get more bang for your buck there.