Nasa needs more funding.

[!Trinick]

I don't see how that supports your argument, if anything it reinforces mine.

Um, what? Literally, quoted exactly out of there, word for word, "we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life."

It's unlikely that of the other places where life has formed the necessary evolutionary changes underwent crafting beings as complex as on earth.

[Ad Bot]

[Tømpson]

And also, Stephen Hawking is not a biologist, he is a theoretical physicist.

[dotdotnonagon]

And also, Stephen Hawking is not a biologist, he is a theoretical physicist.

Everyone knows that physics encompasses all fields. All the other sub-fields are basically elves for the obviously superior physicists.

[Tømpson]

Everyone knows that physics encompasses all fields. All the other sub-fields are basically elves for the obviously superior physicists.

Err, no. Biologists and physicists are worlds apart.
See what I did there?

[!Trinick]

No, but he's an expert on space and probability. If you're seriously disputing Stephen Hawking's credibility on any topic involving space, I don't have anything more to say.

[dotdotnonagon]

Err, no. Biologists and physicists are worlds apart.
See what I did there?

You're not intelligent enough to understand my post, are you?

[Bisjac]

Nasa creates jobs, it also fuels scientific discovery. Why would you ever want to see something like that go away?

privatizing space does this as well. but they are far faster at it, and can build rockets and get into space much MUCH cheaper then nasa can.

[Doomonkey]

Human beings are not very different from unintelligent beings, our DNA is only a 2% difference from apes.

It is also only 50% different from bananas.

Anyway, the reason why a "privatized" space company is stupid is because no matter what they say they won't truly be privatized. As of now, there is absolutely no way a company could make money from space exploration things. So NASA or SpaceX will all be taking the same amount of money from the government.

If they do decide to make money, there is two ways I could see them do it. One is selling tickets to space, which is harmless, but the profitable market for that is probably very small. The other is to sell science that could potentially benefit all of mankind, which companies will eventually purchase.

So if you pick government funding, America loses the same amount of money to SpaceX as they do to NASA. If you choose selling science, then America loses even more money to SpaceX (because they are making a profit). If you believe there is some other source SpaceX can get money from, I'm sure NASA can tap that resource too.