Nasa needs more funding.

[devildogelite]

Quit saying "he." If you're gonna refer to me, say "Adin"
I never left. Nor do I plan to.

I chose military out of choice, because I have an interest in it. If NASA gets 500 billion in it's entire life span, that money going to the military should pretty much go unnoticed over that same time span. that's a little less than an extra 50 billion a year in the military's pocket, which really is not a big number for the military. I never said STRICTLY JUST THE MILITARY, I said;I don't really care where the money goes, all I know is that when you divide a large project into small parts via teams, stuff gets done quicker and more efficiently than if it's just ONE team.

Second, you're one to talk. I don't think you can manage to make a single post without including some form of insult. You try and seem intellectual, and then you end up swearing like you just learned how to. You take what glass does (no offense grassy) and make it 20x worse.

I'm not trying to sound intellectual, you're just a loving handicap.

[Ad Bot]

[AdinX]

I'm not trying to sound intellectual, you're just a loving handicap.

You can't manage to make a single post without including some form of repetitive, juvenile insult.

So if you aren't trying to prove ANY point, then what exactly is your motive?
asidefrombeingarichard

[devildogelite]

So if you aren't trying to prove ANY point, then what exactly is your motive?
asidefrombeingarichard

I was arguing that NASA doesn't need it's funding cut because I was trying to prove how much of an intellectual I am?

No, I was arguing NASA doesn't need it's funding cut because it doesn't.

[Heitmeyers]

There is NO LIFE IN SPACE until about millions and millions and millions of light years away that we will never be able to see first hand. Not in this life time and not in the next life time not even 2,000 years away.

The chance of nasa finding life out there is about 0.5%

Would you please stop loving with reality?

[Inv3rted]

I chose military out of choice, because I have an interest in it. If NASA gets 500 billion in it's entire life span, that money going to the military should pretty much go unnoticed over that same time span. that's a little less than an extra 50 billion a year in the military's pocket, which really is not a big number for the military. I never said STRICTLY JUST THE MILITARY, I said;I don't really care where the money goes, all I know is that when you divide a large project into small parts via teams, stuff gets done quicker and more efficiently than if it's just ONE team.

???

You do realize NASA is not 'one team', right?

Also I have no idea where you're getting $50bn a year; that would imply NASA has only existed for ten years.

[Slugger]

Actually, funding space exploration is pretty loving expensive.

On the topic of there's no life in space, I find that incorrect. A far more acceptable answer is that there's no intelligent life in space. Life itself is an incredibly complex thing to be made, it more than likely does not exist in more than a few thousand places in our universe. To further that by saying all the exact proper changes were made perfectly to yield intelligent life is almost ridiculous. Our existence is actually one of the main proponents of the multiverse theory. It's so unlikely that intelligent life would exist that scientists think the only reason we exist is because there's an infinite number of universes out there where every possible path exists. I'm serious.

Are you serious? Gorillas have been known to use tools and show emotions, and they're on our planet. There is other intelligent life in space, not just here.

[Katadeus]

Are you serious? Gorillas have been known to use tools and show emotions, and they're on our planet. There is other intelligent life in space, not just here.

You need to check out the definition of intelligent being used here.

[RedGajin]

Are you serious? Gorillas have been known to use tools and show emotions, and they're on our planet. There is other intelligent life in space, not just here.

why would we want to spend trillions of dollars and fly for years just to go find some handicapped space monkeys?

[AdinX]

???

You do realize NASA is not 'one team', right?

Also I have no idea where you're getting $50bn a year; that would imply NASA has only existed for ten years.

Figure of speech, and the 50b was bad math, NASA has been around roughly 65 years without me googling it, so that 500b / 65 would be more like 7b a year.

NASA working as one big department seems sort of stupid is all I'm saying. Multiple companies working together towards one goal, making specific parts for future space exploration seems much more economical and beneficial in every way.

I was arguing that NASA doesn't need it's funding cut because I was trying to prove how much of an intellectual I am?

No, I was arguing NASA doesn't need it's funding cut because it doesn't.

And you haven't provided any reason nor opinion as to why it's budget doesn't needs to be cut. I would much rather see funding for space exploration go to companies that are involved with the program than I would NASA. I honestly hope to see SpaceX stay in the lead like it is.
But thank you for clarifying.

[Tømpson]

National defense budget: 711 billion
Nasa's budget: 14 billion (1999, may have decreased)
Now, let's say we just hack off, let's say 11 billion from national defense and put it into nasa
We can now go to mars, send more telescopes into space, advance our knowledge of black holes, And maybe discover what causes the extra weight of space.

Was that so hard?

[Tømpson]

why would we want to spend trillions of dollars and fly for years just to go find some handicapped space monkeys?

Why should we use computers when we can bang two rocks together?

[Kalphiter]

Why use cars when we can walk?

[devildogelite]

And you haven't provided any reason nor opinion as to why it's budget doesn't needs to be cut. I would much rather see funding for space exploration go to companies that are involved with the program than I would NASA. I honestly hope to see SpaceX stay in the lead like it is.
But thank you for clarifying.

Why would private companies be better than NASA? NASA has done some amazing things in it's life time. On top of this how would multiple companies make it any better, they're not very likely to share information with each other. On the other hand NASA can and has worked with private industry, just like almost every other part of the government.


You really have no reason for wanting private industry to take over NASA's position. But you think NASA is "gay" for some stupid reason. You being a prick is the only reason I could think of.

[Kalphiter]

Why would private companies be better than NASA? NASA has done some amazing things in it's life time. On top of this how would multiple companies make it any better, they're not very likely to share information with each other. On the other hand NASA can and has worked with private industry, just like almost every other part of the government.


You really have no reason for wanting private industry to take over NASA's position. But you think NASA is "gay" for some stupid reason. You being a prick is the only reason I could think of.

No, it's because he nonsensically hates "government" and wants everything it funds to be defunded.

[Tømpson]

Private industry is in space for money, but seeing as how nasa is non profit of sorts their scientific discovery is not fueled by greed but for their love and passion for space, math, engineering, ect. It makes no sense to privatize something that's as amazing as nasa.