Nasa needs more funding.

[Penguin/Person]

MASA is better.

Mexican American Space Association :3 look it up its on South Park!!1!1!

[Ad Bot]

[Heitmeyers]

Do you not know how many environmental issues there are already on the Earth? We should atleast get most of these issues fixed before we actually go explore space. Sure, we can have a couple launches to Mars in the next 60 years, but we should be focusing on the issues here. For example, producing electric cars, or getting more streetcar lines up around the globe. Another thing would be solar panels, hydropower, or geothermal power.

In my view, I don't think you know what's fully going on here and what has to be done here first. Then, we can go to space.

[Ben Grapevine]

Do you not know how many environmental issues there are already on the Earth? We should atleast get most of these issues fixed before we actually go explore space. Sure, we can have a couple launches to Mars in the next 60 years, but we should be focusing on the issues here. For example, producing electric cars, or getting more streetcar lines up around the globe. Another thing would be solar panels, hydropower, or geothermal power.

In my view, I don't think you know what's fully going on here and what has to be done here first. Then, we can go to space.

Everything except geothermal and maybe hydro are terrible solutions

[AdinX]

Everything except geothermal and maybe hydro are terrible solutions

I've always thought hydro would be bEst someday, at least until we can have sattelites made entirely out of solar panels that can shoot down gathered energy in someway.
/sarcasm

I agree though, focus on earth before space.

[Doomonkey]

And let's not forget the environmental issues that come along with it, because

Lol. Wherever you got that quote from is really stupid. Just because something uses a lot of energy doesn't mean it isn't green. For the most part rocket ships burns oxygen and hydrogen to create thrust. The result of this combustion reaction is water.

[Soukuw]

There is NO LIFE in space. We should be exploring the ocean, there is an entire universe down there just waiting to be explored.

Are you trolling like usual? or are you honestly that handicapped?

[AdinX]

Lol. Wherever you got that quote from is really stupid. Just because something uses a lot of energy doesn't mean it isn't green. For the most part rocket ships burns oxygen and hydrogen to create thrust. The result of this combustion reaction is water.

Professor Fraser said: "The classic example of environmental impact is in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site, where there are reports of quite serious environmental damage."

For most shuttles, the damage comes from the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, require at shuttle launch to provide 71.4% of the thrust at lift-off and elevate the shuttle to an altitude of 45km (28 miles).

As a shuttle launches, a "cloud" becomes visible which contains SRB exhaust products, either dissolved or as particles in the water vapour released by the main engines.

Hydrochloric acid formed in this launch cloud leads to acidic deposits in the surrounding area, a phenomenon which may also be observed some distance away if exhausts are carried on prevailing winds.

My b, wrong quote.

Are you trolling like usual? or are you honestly that handicapped?

We must not live in space. :I

[Plexious]

We should get our debt under control before we start spending trillions of dollars on a space program.

[dkamm65]

In reply;That's 526 billion that could have gone to things like the economy or military purposes, instead of 135 space launches over the course of 63 years. And let's not forget the environmental issues that come along with it, because

We don't need to spend more on loving defense.

NASA has been given 500 billion TOTAL since 1958, while this country spends 700 billion on defense PER YEAR.

The GDP is 15 trillion. NASA gets 18 billion a year. In other words, one tenth of a percent.

My b, wrong quote.We must not live in space. :I

Way to cut off the rest of the article cause it hurts your point.

Professor Fraser said: "The classic example of environmental impact is in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site, where there are reports of quite serious environmental damage."

For most shuttles, the damage comes from the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, require at shuttle launch to provide 71.4% of the thrust at lift-off and elevate the shuttle to an altitude of 45km (28 miles).

As a shuttle launches, a "cloud" becomes visible which contains SRB exhaust products, either dissolved or as particles in the water vapour released by the main engines.

Hydrochloric acid formed in this launch cloud leads to acidic deposits in the surrounding area, a phenomenon which may also be observed some distance away if exhausts are carried on prevailing winds.

John Pike, president of Global Security.org, and an expert on the US space programme says: "The hydrochloric acid can pit the paint on your car if it is too close to the launch site."

A 1993 Nasa technical manual considered environmental effects of space shuttle launches at Kennedy Space Centre, and stated that some cumulative effects of launches in the nearby area are "reduction in the number of plant species present and reduction in total cover".

The manual also pointed out that acid deposits from the launch cloud can also impact nearby water lagoons and their wildlife.

If hydrochloric acid is deposited, the pH value near the surface of the water may drop and prove too acidic for fish, although these impacts on wildlife do "appear minimal and manageable".

Professor Fraser points out also that while shuttles may cause a small amount of damage to the ozone layer this will be "far less marked than that from the large number of high altitude aircraft in the World all the time".

[Heitmeyers]

There is NO LIFE in space. We should be exploring the ocean, there is an entire universe down there just waiting to be explored.

I hope you aren't serious about that.

[sir dooble]

I hope you aren't serious about that.

He raises a fair point.

There may or may not be life in space.
If there is, we'd have an exceedingly difficult time locating them.
And if we could locate them, chances are they would be so far away that we'd never even be able to properly contact them, let alone meet up.

But, only a fraction of the Ocean's have been explored. There are countless numbers of new species of life living down there which we've yet to discover. They could teach us some amazing things. They could be of use in providing resources for the world, or their biology may even lead us to technological advances. (Learning how something survives in extreme conditions helps us devise ways to also survive in extreme conditions.)


The search for life in space isn't necesarilly pointless (far from it), but it most definitely should not be our primary goal in cosmology and the reasons for entering space.
I would like to see more on Oceanic research, but that's a different topic altogether.

[Heitmeyers]

There may or may not be life in space.

You're right about that, although there has been evidence of aliens visiting Earth.

But, only a fraction of the Ocean's have been explored. There are countless numbers of new species of life living down there which we've yet to discover. They could teach us some amazing things. They could be of use in providing resources for the world, or their biology may even lead us to technological advances. (Learning how something survives in extreme conditions helps us devise ways to also survive in extreme conditions.)

I totally agree with you on that. I do think there are some unknown species down below us, and we have yet to discover them.

The search for life in space isn't necesarilly pointless (far from it), but it most definitely should not be our primary goal in cosmology and the reasons for entering space.

I pretty much agree with you on that. I don't think finding aliens should be our main goal of entering space.

[AdinX]

We don't need to spend more on loving defense. I would rather see defense get it than NASA. I could really care less where the money DOES go, so long as NASA is out of the picture.

NASA has been given 500 billion TOTAL since 1958, while this country spends 700 billion on defense PER YEAR. Once again, I would rather see  the money go elsewhere over NASA.

The GDP is 15 trillion. NASA gets 18 billion a year. In other words, one tenth of a percent. Jobs created by the mars mission: 7,000 |VS| Jobs created by US armed forces: 2.4~ million. The military is expensive to take care of because it includes A LOT OF PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT

Way to cut off the rest of the article cause it hurts your point. though it still mentions environmental damage. Regardless of how much is caused, it's still a factor.

I really don't desire to argue over this. I don't like NASA, and I don't like the current debt, I would rather see private companies work together to reach space, not a government body. I don't think that requires too much scientific evidence and quotation just for an opinion. But thank you for correcting my error.

[Inv3rted]

I really don't desire to argue over this. I don't like NASA, and I don't like the current debt, I would rather see private companies work together to reach space, not a government body. I don't think that requires too much scientific evidence and quotation just for an opinion. But thank you for correcting my error.

you are the stupidest motherforgeter alive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Public_perception

[Oasis]

There is NO LIFE in space.

What the forget are we then?