Jump to content


NASA Denied Funding to Potentially Save Planet


FutureGM
 Share

Recommended Posts

AP-

 

WASHINGTON - NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth, but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done.

 

The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release later this week. The report was previewed Monday at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington.

 

Congress in 2005 asked NASA to come up with a plan to track most killer asteroids and propose how to deflect the potentially catastrophic ones.

 

"We know what to do, we just don't have the money," said Simon "Pete" Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center.

 

These are asteroids that are bigger than 460 feet in diameter ? slightly smaller than the Superdome in New Orleans. They are a threat even if they don't hit Earth because if they explode while close enough ? an event caused by heating in both the rock and the atmosphere ? the devastation from the shockwaves is still immense. The explosion alone could have with the power of 100 million tons of dynamite, enough to devastate an entire state, such as Maryland, they said.

 

The agency is already tracking bigger objects, at least 3,300 feet in diameter, that could wipe out most life on Earth, much like what is theorized to have happened to dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But even that search, which has spotted 769 asteroids and comets ? none of which is on course to hit Earth ? is behind schedule. It's supposed to be complete by the end of next year.

 

NASA needs to do more to locate other smaller, but still potentially dangerous space bodies. While an Italian observatory is doing some work, the United States is the only government with an asteroid-tracking program, NASA said.

 

One solution would be to build a new ground telescope solely for the asteroid hunt, and piggyback that use with other agencies' telescopes for a total of $800 million. Another would be to launch a space infrared telescope that could do the job faster for $1.1 billion. But NASA program scientist Lindley Johnson said NASA and the White House called both those choices too costly.

 

A cheaper option would be to simply piggyback on other agencies' telescopes, a cost of about $300 million, also rejected, Johnson said.

 

"The decision of the agency is we just can't do anything about it right now," he added.

 

Earth got a scare in 2004, when initial readings suggested an 885-foot asteroid called 99942 Apophis seemed to have a chance of hitting Earth in 2029. But more observations showed that wouldn't happen. Scientists say there is a 1-in-45,000 chance that it could hit in 2036.

 

They think it would mostly likely strike the Pacific Ocean, which would cause a tsunami on the U.S. West Coast the size of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean wave.

 

John Logsdon, space policy director at George Washington University, said a stepped-up search for such asteroids is needed.

 

"You can't deflect them if you can't find them," Logsdon said. "And we can't find things that can cause massive damage."

 

Link

Obviously $1 billion over several decades is far too much to give to NASA. Why save the world for that much when you can do it for a bargain? :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Could take some money out of 586.1 billion thrown into social security, the 394.5 billion thrown into medicare, 367 billion put into welfare, or 276.4 billion put into medicaid.

 

Science/technology on the contrary gets 25 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could take some money out of 586.1 billion thrown into social security, the 394.5 billion thrown into medicare, 367 billion put into welfare, or 276.4 billion put into medicaid.

 

Science/technology on the contrary gets 25 billion.

 

*Ding ding ding*

 

Winner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could take some money out of 586.1 billion thrown into social security, the 394.5 billion thrown into medicare, 367 billion put into welfare, or 276.4 billion put into medicaid.

 

Science/technology on the contrary gets 25 billion.

 

The private industry heavily funds science/technology. Just look at the biomed and pharmaceutical companies. As long as we protect their patents it will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather see money going to social programs than something useless like the Iraq War. I had/have no problem spending money on increasing the intelligence budget so that they can go after terrorists, but the Pentagon's budget should NEVER come close to exceeding 50% of the entire federal budget (like it does now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could take some money out of 586.1 billion thrown into social security, the 394.5 billion thrown into medicare, 367 billion put into welfare, or 276.4 billion put into medicaid.

 

Science/technology on the contrary gets 25 billion.

 

The private industry heavily funds science/technology. Just look at the biomed and pharmaceutical companies. As long as we protect their patents it will be fine.

Yes, but I don't really see how a private industry would be involved for what NASA is specifically asking for.

 

Juanky is right though, we are wasting trillions in these ineffective social programs that could be better spent elsewhere. I believe NASA receives about one percent of the national budget. No other government entity has contributed so much with so little to work with. It pains me to see all of that money thrown into social security and welfare.

0.7% of the federal budget is taken up by NASA, however people at NASA are brilliant and make the most of what they get, but are still hindered. Meanwhile, people in charge of the trillions going to social problems are morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could take some money out of 586.1 billion thrown into social security, the 394.5 billion thrown into medicare, 367 billion put into welfare, or 276.4 billion put into medicaid.

 

Science/technology on the contrary gets 25 billion.

 

The private industry heavily funds science/technology. Just look at the biomed and pharmaceutical companies. As long as we protect their patents it will be fine.

Yes, but I don't really see how a private industry would be involved for what NASA is specifically asking for.

 

Juanky is right though, we are wasting trillions in these ineffective social programs that could be better spent elsewhere. I believe NASA receives about one percent of the national budget. No other government entity has contributed so much with so little to work with. It pains me to see all of that money thrown into social security and welfare.

0.7% of the federal budget is taken up by NASA, however people at NASA are brilliant and make the most of what they get, but are still hindered. Meanwhile, people in charge of the trillions going to social problems are morons.

 

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather see money going to social programs than something useless like the Iraq War. I had/have no problem spending money on increasing the intelligence budget so that they can go after terrorists, but the Pentagon's budget should NEVER come close to exceeding 50% of the entire federal budget (like it does now).

ding...this is the only answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are some of you proposing getting rid of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Because I'd like to hear how you propose providing medical care to the many people in this country that can't afford it, medical care to the many elderly Americans that can't afford it, and provide substantive income to the many elderly Americans that no longer recieve a paycheck.

 

At least these programs actually help actual people in specific benefits rather than some ambigious and unestablished threat from ALL brown people in the middle east. (yes 9-11 was a specific attack but it didn't need to open up our budget to invade other countries unrelated to 9-11). We get to spend on how much on a troop surge that has a 1/4 chance of stablizing a country that doesn't even want us there because that might stop what?

 

And let's not even pretend money isn't wasted in ineffeciency with the US Military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are some of you proposing getting rid of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Because I'd like to hear how you propose providing medical care to the many people in this country that can't afford it, medical care to the many elderly Americans that can't afford it, and provide substantive income to the many elderly Americans that no longer recieve a paycheck.

 

At least these programs actually help actual people in specific benefits rather than some ambigious and unestablished threat from ALL brown people in the middle east. (yes 9-11 was a specific attack but it didn't need to open up our budget to invade other countries unrelated to 9-11). We get to spend on how much on a troop surge that has a 1/4 chance of stablizing a country that doesn't even want us there because that might stop what?

 

And let's not even pretend money isn't wasted in ineffeciency with the US Military.

 

Actually there are very good arguments for getting rid of medicare and medicaid. I won't go into specifics but one of the major alternatives that has been discussed is a government regulated increase in private health insurance premiums based on income, so the surplus can be used to fund isnurance benefits for people who can't afford insurance. The pros are its a higher level of benefits, b/c its the same type of coverage as people who pay premiums, more accountability, and less bureaucracy. The negative is it opens for abuses and it may be hard to set up and regulate.

Regardless, getting rid of medicare and medicaid is not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Also, the ineffectiveness of government 'entitlements' is not automatically to be ignored simply b/c we're wasting money on Iraq or the military. Theyre both problems that need to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rather just socialize medicine and give unniversal college funding as well :p

 

 

But there is plenty of money out there to fund NASA, heck think of it as alternative military funding for the future wars against aliens.

 

We all have seen what the evil brain bugs can do when they blew up buenos aires!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are some of you proposing getting rid of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Because I'd like to hear how you propose providing medical care to the many people in this country that can't afford it, medical care to the many elderly Americans that can't afford it, and provide substantive income to the many elderly Americans that no longer recieve a paycheck.

 

At least these programs actually help actual people in specific benefits rather than some ambigious and unestablished threat from ALL brown people in the middle east. (yes 9-11 was a specific attack but it didn't need to open up our budget to invade other countries unrelated to 9-11). We get to spend on how much on a troop surge that has a 1/4 chance of stablizing a country that doesn't even want us there because that might stop what?

 

And let's not even pretend money isn't wasted in ineffeciency with the US Military.

I don't think we are arguing something that black and white (at least I'm not as I did try to choose my words carefully). I was basically trying to say that the benefits of such poorly managed government programs hardly match the ridiculous sums of money that are being put into them. There is a dire need for reform (maybe throwing more money at them isn't the answer?). However, I will say that some of these programs should never have been implemented to begin with, but it's far too late now.

 

As I alluded to earlier, I dread the day we implement socialized medicine. That is probably the only thing this country could do to impel me to leave. The trouble is, I have no idea where I would go.

 

My point is that the benefits are much more direct and substanitive than the benefits we see from the war in Iraq. There are specific people that get to go to specific doctors to get assistance. There are communities that are that much better off because they have fewer health concerns. That is much more direct than the benefits we get from the Iraq war. But maybe you can tell me what the direct benefits are that we get from the Iraq war? If you want to make a benefits vs. burdens argument, then you can't sit there and say you have fewer problems with the Iraq war.

 

I figured that you guys werent arguing about the actual programs but how they are run. But I'm wary of these so called fix it approaches. I think the Grover Norquists of the world would find any way possible to destroy these programs, even using the veil of reforming the programs.

 

But my point is also that even if your problem with these programs is that they are badly run, which is fine, then don't isolate the problem with just these programs. The military has major problems in terms of waste. So do other programs. The necessary reform is more overarching.

 

If your problem with these programs is that they are going to cost more and more everyday, then the problem is with the rise in medical care in this country. That is a problem that is not only hurting the government programs, it is also hurting the private insurance programs. How many companies can barely survive in terms of health care coverage for their employees as it is?

 

Are some of you proposing getting rid of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Because I'd like to hear how you propose providing medical care to the many people in this country that can't afford it, medical care to the many elderly Americans that can't afford it, and provide substantive income to the many elderly Americans that no longer recieve a paycheck.

 

At least these programs actually help actual people in specific benefits rather than some ambigious and unestablished threat from ALL brown people in the middle east. (yes 9-11 was a specific attack but it didn't need to open up our budget to invade other countries unrelated to 9-11). We get to spend on how much on a troop surge that has a 1/4 chance of stablizing a country that doesn't even want us there because that might stop what?

 

And let's not even pretend money isn't wasted in ineffeciency with the US Military.

 

Actually there are very good arguments for getting rid of medicare and medicaid. I won't go into specifics but one of the major alternatives that has been discussed is a government regulated increase in private health insurance premiums based on income, so the surplus can be used to fund isnurance benefits for people who can't afford insurance. The pros are its a higher level of benefits, b/c its the same type of coverage as people who pay premiums, more accountability, and less bureaucracy. The negative is it opens for abuses and it may be hard to set up and regulate.

Regardless, getting rid of medicare and medicaid is not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Also, the ineffectiveness of government 'entitlements' is not automatically to be ignored simply b/c we're wasting money on Iraq or the military. Theyre both problems that need to be addressed.

 

And what happens when the rise in healthcare causes the rise in premiums to outpace various income levels? The poor are less able to handle the pinch compared to the rich. Arent' you asking for regulation of the health insurance industry that has to essentially guarentee that people can afford insurance?

 

And why should we trust industry that is quasi regulated when the Bush administration has proven that regulatory bodies can be subverted with the right influence?

 

The problem with healthcare right now is not the presence of these programs. It's that there is a large squeeze on the middle to lower middle class. Shifting the burden just for these groups of people has become debateable. Doing the same for not only the middle and lower middle class but the poor also would be enormously dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Are some of you proposing getting rid of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Because I'd like to hear how you propose providing medical care to the many people in this country that can't afford it, medical care to the many elderly Americans that can't afford it, and provide substantive income to the many elderly Americans that no longer recieve a paycheck.

 

At least these programs actually help actual people in specific benefits rather than some ambigious and unestablished threat from ALL brown people in the middle east. (yes 9-11 was a specific attack but it didn't need to open up our budget to invade other countries unrelated to 9-11). We get to spend on how much on a troop surge that has a 1/4 chance of stablizing a country that doesn't even want us there because that might stop what?

 

And let's not even pretend money isn't wasted in ineffeciency with the US Military.

Let's also not pretend that the Iraq war is the be all that ends all in terms of government waste. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are the poster children for programs that end up hurting the people they're supposed to be helping in the long run, and all while doing so they're just making the government bigger which (gasp) leads to corruption and waste.

 

The fundamental systems themselves are incredibly flawed. Even forgetting the stupidities of the 70s in how Social Security was destroyed, the idea itself is dumb. Let's take money that could be put away for retirement on our own and send it to a big account. That account will gain zero interest and the money will be taxed upon its removal when you are of age. Oh, btw, during this entire time there's inflation so the money gap between what's put in and what's taken out grows larger and larger by the day. Then once we're done failing on principle, we proceed to fail in practice. People that choose to have private retirement benefits (or are given them by their employers) still have to pay social security, because the system is so flawed to begin with. Then they get taxed on the money they put away on their own! It's a great idea to think people should have money for retirement, but it's about being patient enough to realize that laws forcing people's hands actually hinder the process that would be the most important thing for us to have.

 

Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare aren't much better - even in theory. Medicare pays doctors not by the quality of their work, but a flat rate based on how many patients they see. Blind socialism. These aren't programs that work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's also not pretend that the Iraq war is the be all that ends all in terms of government waste.

 

Why not? How much money was spent on that war based on what premise? The country is going to become a bigger threat to us after we are done with it than before. Radical Shiites are going to have enormous influence and nothing has been suggested that can preclude that from happening. How is this not an enormous waste?

 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are the poster children for programs that end up hurting the people they're supposed to be helping in the long run, and all while doing so they're just making the government bigger which (gasp) leads to corruption and waste.

 

As opposed to the pure bliss seen by the deregulation of the energy industry in the late 90s?

 

The fundamental systems themselves are incredibly flawed. Even forgetting the stupidities of the 70s in how Social Security was destroyed, the idea itself is dumb. Let's take money that could be put away for retirement on our own and send it to a big account. That account will gain zero interest and the money will be taxed upon its removal when you are of age. Oh, btw, during this entire time there's inflation so the money gap between what's put in and what's taken out grows larger and larger by the day. Then once we're done failing on principle, we proceed to fail in practice. People that choose to have private retirement benefits (or are given them by their employers) still have to pay social security, because the system is so flawed to begin with. Then they get taxed on the money they put away on their own! It's a great idea to think people should have money for retirement, but it's about being patient enough to realize that laws forcing people's hands actually hinder the process that would be the most important thing for us to have.

 

I understand your philosphy of the value of personal choice. But our system cannot survive when society as a whole makes choices that lead to economic and financial disaster. The private retirement benefits are often not enough for those who use them. They complement it with social security. The principle of the program is that it is meant complementary. Whatever your issues are with mismanagement or improper policy, they still are problems with execution and not the idea that government will play a role in assuring retirement stability.

 

 

Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare aren't much better - even in theory. Medicare pays doctors not by the quality of their work, but a flat rate based on how many patients they see. Blind socialism. These aren't programs that work.

 

What about the theory, that making sure those who cannot afford health coverage can still get access to it, is wrong? They are limited in what is covered so they cannot abuse the system. They are limited to medical use only so they can't become dependant on it. Labelling something socialism doesn't mean it falls under the umbrella of all socialism.

 

And again, your problem with the program is not something that can't be fixed with policy shifts. No policy is ever fool proof or not prone to abuse. This is true even in private industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...