You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on NASA when there are 2.3 million homeless people in American.

File: 505 KB, 1499x1151, Vehicle-Assembly-Building-July-6-2005[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:09:27 2013 No.6111034 [Reply] [Original]

You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on NASA when there are 2.3 million homeless people in American.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:10:27 2013 No.6111036 so after 10 seconds you'll do what? delete the thread?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:11:26 2013 No.6111037 NASA: Landed on the moon Homeless people: Annoy everyone, beg for money

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:13:57 2013 No.6111041 >>6111037 And how is landing on the moon better than putting 2.3 million americans to work?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:14:56 2013 No.6111046
File: 31 KB, 482x362, jerryyjpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Spending money on spess things a.k.a. cosmic insurance > some nignogs who bullied me in junior high

What if earth blows up and there are no backup people on mars or something? Then what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:16:27 2013 No.6111048 >>6111041 >thinking homeless people want to work

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:16:56 2013 No.6111049 You have 10 seconds to justify why there are 14.2 million vacant homes in America and 2.3 million homeless people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:18:26 2013 No.6111052 >>6111048 i was thinking spending nasa money on forced labor camps making rockets it's how wernher von braun began after all

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:18:57 2013 No.6111051 Hey, if you completely cut NASA, you could only give each of those homeless people about $8,000/year, which would barely house and feed them. Do you want the first flag planted on Mars to be China's?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:19:27 2013 No.6111056
File: 454 KB, 557x480, 1379995760450.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because it's not a zero-sum game. You can fund NASA and also reduce homelessness.

If anything, cutting funds to NASA would mean a decrease in revenue since it has a high ROI.

If you want to deal with problems like homelessness, look to increase revenue, re-appropriate revenue from the military industrial complex, streamline the welfare system, or preferably all three

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:19:56 2013 No.6111054 >>6111049 Clearly, we need 14.2 million new divorces.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:21:56 2013 No.6111060 >>6111034 The world can definitely afford to lose some of it's population. Also NASA is at least trying to progress, while most homeless people are mooches of which are more than likely not going to do much with their lives. Cruel, but true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:25:56 2013 No.6111074 File: 1.69 MB, 268x200, 1372084842286.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying technology developed from NASA projects is putting more than 2.3 million people to work now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:26:56 2013 No.6111076 >>6111041 funding NASA could create job opportunities in the form of scientific discoveries and engineering feats. Thus reducing homelessness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:28:58 2013 No.6111084 >>6111076 dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/ten-nasa-inventions.htm

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:29:26 2013 No.6111086 >>6111076 >>6111074 >hiring homeless people as engineers and astronauts

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:29:26 2013 No.6111087 Because space exploration outweighs the lower class american scum.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:32:57 2013 No.6111093

There will always be homeless people, there will always be disadvantaged groups in society. That problem is intractable. Opening a new branch of Human civilisation however, is a tractable problem. Imagine if Columbis had returned and the spanish monarchs had said "not interested in the new world, rip the ships apart and use the wood to build homeless shelters."

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:34:57 2013 No.6111097 >>6111086 >It would be cheaper than training a monkey/There dicksucking skills would be amazing from all those times they needed crack money.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:36:27 2013 No.6111101 >>6111086 boil them down to make kerosene

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:36:56 2013 No.6111099 You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on homeless people instead of NASA.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:37:56 2013 No.6111102 >>6111034 Not enough Jesus wanted to help the poor

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:43:27 2013 No.6111116

>>6111093
Yeah even if we built a home for every single homeless person, they would breed and a few generations down the line we would have homelessness again.

Not to sound pretentious but society is the problem in this not money. We have to stop fucking breeding or something which sounds fucked but I know people just over the thin line of being homeless who then pop out kids and completely fuck themselves over.
They will get housing but they will raise the kids in horrible poverty who will likely repeat the problem.

I mean look at some extremely terrible places to live, of course rape is a factor but people piss out kids, like certain places in Africa, we are donating money for them to have more kids which in turn increases their problems.
We provide suitable living and housing for say 100, then 5 years later this number is 250 and the resources run out.
So we just paid for 100 suffering people to become 250 suffering people.

We need some for of population control.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:45:57 2013 No.6111119 >/sci/ in charge of handling social issues

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:48:57 2013 No.6111131 >>6111116 We don't have homelessness because of overpopulation. Many of the homeless are insane or addicts. Others are just coping with a temporary bad situation.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:55:28 2013 No.6111148

>>6111056
Yes, this. There are a hell of a lot better places to get the money from than NASA's paltry budget.

Jack up taxes on the pampered higher brackets, stop spending so much money on killbots, and fix your horribly inefficient and dysfunctional medical system. Don't gut one of the few things Americans can genuinely be proud of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:57:58 2013 No.6111151 >>6111034 Nobody cares about homeless people. Everyone says they do, but they don't. If we did, there would be no homeless people just as there is no smallpox virus anymore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:57:58 2013 No.6111152 File: 329 KB, 2048x1536, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >less graduates want to apply for NASA because of the uncertainty with government >mfw I apply with a 2.3 GPA and start at $300,000 a year

>>	IHΠ Wed Oct 23 22:58:27 2013 No.6111154 >>6111034 The homeless are worthless

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 22:58:27 2013 No.6111156

>>6111131
I didn't say overpopulation, but that breeding is the main route.

I cannot speak for any country apart from England, where I live homelessness and poverty is a kind of bi-product of what is happening in Africa.

A family will be in extreme poverty, they will have a kid, the kid gets older, parents die. Kid has a small apartment and a job, he loses that job, he is now homeless. He has no family money or property to fall back on.

Do not get me wrong this isn't the complete case but if you honestly speak to most homeless the common denominator is their family was poor.

I am not saying the poor should not have kids, but just that poverty breeds more poverty. Where I live we have some great programs but they cannot keep up with the amount of kids the homeless and people in poverty push out.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:04:33 2013 No.6111169

>>6111156
Then maybe your country needs to get its fucking priorities in order.

If poverty is a cycle then any sane and rational society would put as much resources as possible into ending it, because a society full of productive and happy people is going to create more wealth than one full of miserable poor people.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:08:34 2013 No.6111181

>>6111148
Hell you don't even need to jack up taxes to increase revenue. Ending the war on drugs alone would be a huge cut to costs but also increase revenue through a widened tax base and more economic activity.

If we had nationalized resources like oil, that would also help.

Investments in science programs and raw research and development, as well as infrastructure projects, are also good ways to increase productivity and increase revenue in the long run.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:10:33 2013 No.6111186

>>6111169
Every country has this problem.

The problem is every time the problem seems sorted, they breed like crazy and the problem becomes fucked again.

This pic for example, 2 people were given housing and benefits and work schemes ect they then pop out fucking 10 kids which the state cannot fully support, those kids will likely grow up to poverty then have 10 kids themselves.

Idiots breed like crazy, idiots don't earn money.

There is no solution or way around this, every solution ends in idiots having to many kids and creating more poverty.

Smart people breed according to what they can afford to support.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:11:04 2013 No.6111187 File: 100 KB, 960x540, bababa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111186 forgot pic

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:18:04 2013 No.6111198
File: 79 KB, 751x544, space based solar power.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6111034
With greater funding for NASA, NASA would actually have the money to carry out large projects that could bring back large returns, like space based solar power.

With space based solar power we could have a clean, continuous, and nearly unlimited supply of energy to grow our economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:19:33 2013 No.6111200 >>6111156 >from england What do you know about space? Your country has never been to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:21:34 2013 No.6111201 >>6111034 We need to be very proficient in space technology or humanity dies. We can comfortably do without several million people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:24:35 2013 No.6111203 >>6111186 Yeah, except that "problem" is an outlier. The vast majority of people don't have 10 kids and frankly you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that's typical.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:25:04 2013 No.6111204

>>6111116
>>We have to stop fucking breeding or something
Easy, increase the standard of living. As the standard of living rises people tend to have less kids and the population levels off.

>>but people piss out kids, like certain places in Africa
but many of those kids die at a young age, which is why they have so many.

>>We need some for of population control.
an education is a pretty good form of population control

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:27:34 2013 No.6111205

>>6111203
>that's typical
Go have a look right now on the statistics of people in poverty having kids and compare it to people with money.
Yeah sure not every family has 10 but they in general have a lot more kids.

Most friends I know with poor backgrounds have many brothers and sisters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:28:34 2013 No.6111206 >>6111034 Most people are poor of their own doing. NASA research generally leads to breakthroughs that improve life for all. What do I do with the other five seconds?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:30:35 2013 No.6111208 >>6111198 >with more money they could make more money

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:31:34 2013 No.6111210

>>6111206
>NASA research generally leads to breakthroughs that improve life for all.
That's really not true. I don't know why people keep repeating this myth that NASA has had all sorts of great general-purpose technology spin-offs.

Most of their tech research is only relevant to doing stuff in space. There were a few things that NASA was an early user of, but that's just something they're free to do because of deep pockets. It doesn't mean those things were developed for NASA or wouldn't have existed without NASA.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:32:03 2013 No.6111211

>>6111204
>Easy, increase the standard of living. As the standard of living rises people tend to have less kids and the population levels off.
Population of smart people levels off, look at the standard of living costs in London but the problem is just as bad there as it is in my city which has low cost of living.

>but many of those kids die at a young age, which is why they have so many
That suitable living and housing scenario I talked about is literally what is happening, these facilitys have medical staff on site 24/7 and the amount of kids that survive largely increases, but the population boom just fucked the whole facility and goes from supporting a town into just propping up poverty.
>an education is a pretty good form of population control
Not when the non educated to better off than the educated and given loads of money and housing that increases with the amount of kids you have.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:33:04 2013 No.6111213 >>6111204 >Easy, increase the standard of living. As the standard of living rises people tend to have less kids and the population levels off. Not when the government will provide more money every time it rises.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:33:04 2013 No.6111216 >>6111208 Yes, that's how the world works. The more money you have the easier it is to make even more money.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:34:04 2013 No.6111217 >>6111198 Space solar power is a great way to get power for things in space. Beaming it down to Earth is problematic in all sorts of ways. Not least of which is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to set up solar panels on the ground than in orbit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:34:04 2013 No.6111218 >>6111210 They gave us tang and the replaceable heart valve. Do your research before you talk.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:36:34 2013 No.6111223

>>6111210
There are literally 1,800+ officially documented spin-off technologies. Here's a few:

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:37:03 2013 No.6111225 File: 84 KB, 960x576, 1377007336836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111210

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:42:33 2013 No.6111234 >>6111218 >>6111223 >>6111225 This is the exact sort of thing I'm talking about. No, NASA didn't invent tang, golf clubs, or image enhancement. Those are the sort of ridiculous claims people make, and can never back up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:46:33 2013 No.6111240 >>6111234 You're welcome to take a look at the citation yourself: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/index.html They document these things every year.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:48:04 2013 No.6111243 >>6111240 >source is NASA Yeah, totally not biased

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:50:03 2013 No.6111245 >>6111243 Ah, so you cede you're a retard. Good, now I can go to sleep.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:50:03 2013 No.6111248
File: 276 KB, 1191x882, space solar powersat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6111217
>>Beaming it down to Earth is problematic in all sorts of ways.
Not really, we've pretty much got that problem solved.

The main problems are getting the solar panels light enough to send up there or building them from materials in space. And of course constructing huge solar panel arrays in space.

>>a lot cheaper to set up solar panels on the ground than in orbit.
it is, but with solar panels on the ground you are limited by Earth's day night cycle and weather.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:50:32 2013 No.6111249

>>6111223
>There are literally 1,800+ officially documented spin-off technologies.
You know that's not actually a lot, right, for an organization spending $10+ billion on high-tech work per year? And most of them are pretty minor.

You could get that kind of output on a per-year basis, rather than accumulated over decades, if you directly put their budget into R&D for stuff intended to be practical on Earth.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:52:33 2013 No.6111251

>>6111249
>You could get that kind of output on a per-year basis, rather than accumulated over decades, if you directly put their budget into R&D for stuff intended to be practical on Earth.
Exactly, we're getting these things just as a side effect of the already awesome goal of space exploration. So fuck you if you're a hater and fuck the haters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:53:00 2013 No.6111254 File: 84 KB, 622x491, 1350086416694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111245

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:58:58 2013 No.6111260

>>6111034

there is a possibility that there are 2.3 quadrillion life forms homeless, drifting about the cosmos, looking for a home. are you going to risk the chance of helping them for a measly 2.3 million herpes-ridden schizophrenics with tardive dyskinesia and generally unpleasant dispositions?

i thought so

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:58:58 2013 No.6111262 NASA plans on capturing a fucking asteroid

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 23:59:28 2013 No.6111264

>>6111251
The point is, you could spend that money doing almost anything, and get spin-offs of at least equivalent value.

So we're not getting it because it's being spent on NASA, and not because it's being spent by the government, but simply because it's being spent.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:06:29 2013 No.6111267

>>6111262
Only because if Obama continued with the moon plan, he wouldn't get credit for coming up with the idea.

It's apparently a thing now for a US president to tear down his predecessor's long term plans, especially the ones that make sense, to maximize the scope of his own legacy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:22:08 2013 No.6111283 >>6111262 And I plan to fuck your mother Guess which plan will actually happen

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:28:40 2013 No.6111289 >>6111034 >"We pay NASA too much money! There's a lot of poor people in this country!" >"Okay, why don't we give than money to poor people?" >"Socialist prick! Go suck Comrade President's Niggger cock!"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:45:09 2013 No.6111305 Space is cooler and doesn't need to be fed Thanksgiving dinner on styrofoam plates.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:47:09 2013 No.6111309 >>6111186 >Has worked 9 months in his adult life Why? Full story anywhere?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:47:39 2013 No.6111308 >>6111305 > implying you clean dishes at a family reunion

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 02:00:43 2013 No.6111375 >>6111216 You'd almost think that the total money returned is less important than the ratio between money invested and money earned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 02:16:17 2013 No.6111390 >>6111375 NASA returns something like $7 for every $1 invested, so yeah sounds like a good investment plan to me

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 02:23:47 2013 No.6111394 Nope. We start with "ground roots" growth and expand eventually to long term investments like space flight. First things first. If /sci/ could philosphy it would al be crystal clear.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:00:16 2013 No.6111420 >>6111041 A complex task like landing on the moon created about 40,000 jobs alone, back in the 70's. Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:07:47 2013 No.6111425 >>6111034 execute all the homeless people Problem solved, next.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:18:03 2013 No.6111433 We have enough money for both. Cut military equipment contracts in favor of civilian/multipurpose research and NASA, cut Medicare/Medicaid in favor of WIC, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:19:02 2013 No.6111435 >>6111425 Protip: this isn't a viable option, and we've tried it many times before. Starvation/malnutrition are just too damn slow

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:20:03 2013 No.6111439

>>6111198
Also, your plan would double as an orbital death laser.

>>6111034
False dichotomy.The homeless problem should be tackled, but even if a marginal dollar would be more effective for homeless people now, there is a point where the marginal effectiveness is equal, and that point is well within reach for a first world nation like the US. By which I mean that the marginal effectiveness per dollar from things like the wall street bailout or increased taxes certainly is less than that of the marginal dollar for NASA or the homeless. Budget should flow from the least utility to the greatest utility, not from great utility to greater.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:48:02 2013 No.6111449 File: 30 KB, 510x288, welfare_meme_generator_200_per_kid_yea_i_ll_have_some_more_1dad2e_662965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] those 2.3 million people have no value, and we would be better off with them dead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:53:32 2013 No.6111451 File: 130 KB, 344x472, mydrills.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111036 > pointing out OPs stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 03:54:02 2013 No.6111452 >HURR POOR PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE ROUNDED UP AND KILLED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A SELF-MADE AMERICAN MAN LIKE ME Go fuck yourselves. I'd just love to see some of you /pol/-bred edgenauts handle poverty.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 04:03:03 2013 No.6111454 >>6111452 A human life has no real inherent value but only that which has been invested in it. We could always make more if we need them. Homeless people are no use to society in general, rather, they are a burden and they should be done away with.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 04:06:32 2013 No.6111455

>>6111452
I've spent much of my adult life homeless, sometimes by necessity but usually by choice. (rent is expensive)

ironically enough I've become quite wealthy over the last decade, and own a couple houses. I don't judge homeless people though. People wind up camping out for lots of reasons.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 04:52:40 2013 No.6111481

There's more justification than people in USA getting:
-new tablet computers
-new cellphones
-stupidly expensive coffee
-way too much clothes they never use
-new sports cars
-vanity shit in games
-hair gel/mousse
-business class seats
-stupidly expensive tickets to sports, music, and other events
-non-educational toys
-stupidly expensive houses in stupidly expensive areas

How many of these did you do? Yes YOU! YOU RIGHT THERE!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:07:41 2013 No.6111497 >>6111481 i don't have any of these

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:12:41 2013 No.6111501 >>6111497 Good for you. Here's your ticket for space colonization.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:25:41 2013 No.6111508

>>6111455
I was homeless, the bad kind. There's a yawning gap between the camping seasonal worker type of homeless and the crazy sleeping in gutter type of homeless. I know because I was that guy; and had "the mars landing" been attempted during my homeless years I wouldn't have begrudged NASA a cent, and I would have been the first to cram into one of the shelters where I could watch the event on TV.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:31:42 2013 No.6111513 >>6111420 the money for those jobs came from the private economy, reducing jobs there this is related to the broken window fallacy. although in this case it's a why havent we confiscated some money and gone to the moon yet?-fallacy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:33:10 2013 No.6111515 >>6111481 fascist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 05:37:11 2013 No.6111518 >>6111515 Nope. If you favor frivolities over more important stuff, then I'm calling you a frivolous person and will never take you seriously.

>>	Violent Simians Guy Thu Oct 24 11:28:16 2013 No.6111773 >>6111051 It doesn't matter to me who plants a flag on Mars except that I prefer it not be the USA since it's a total waste of money to accomplish.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 11:36:07 2013 No.6111787 there's less than 1,000,000 years left until this entire solar system is obliterated. never compromise the mission!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 11:57:06 2013 No.6111815 >>6111390 >NASA returns something like $7 for every $1 invested [citation needed] inb4 some grossly biased and unreasonable handwaving

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:54:44 2013 No.6111896

>>6111034
Scientific research only costs a tiny fraction of the trillions spent yearly globally by the private sector on completely inane shit. I don't give jack shit about mascara adverts on TV, or air fresheners for cars.

You're misplacing your blame. We'd be much better off getting the money to feed the homeless from elsewhere, like all that shit teenage girls spend on texting about how much they love One Direction. At least scientific research actually has tangible benefits, e.g. the fucking transistor.

Capitalism is fucking retarded. Shame most humans are too useless to get anything a bit more efficient together.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:04:44 2013 No.6111908 >>6111034 Well for one, even if we would close down the NASA there would still be homeless people because the existence of NASA doesn't create homeless people but rather an incompetent government.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:06:44 2013 No.6111909 >>6111896 There's a difference between government and private spending.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:27:16 2013 No.6111940 >>6111787 [citation needed] And no it isn't the Sun, it'll be fine in a million years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:33:47 2013 No.6111946 >>6111481 >-non-educational toys educational toys are expensive because schools are willing to pay lots of money for them. See the exponentially rising cost of Lego mindstorms. Which is a goddamn shame really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:37:51 2013 No.6111953 >>6111501 >>6111497 and bring a space-hardened smartphone with a big red DON'T PANIC button, you'll need it to become a space hobo.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 13:43:20 2013 No.6111961

I've yet to see an intelligent post that gives the supposed merits of wasting enormous amounts of American resources just to poke at rocks and take pictures of them on Mars.

There are only two camps that argue in favor of these boondoggles, corporations that get the contracts and creeps who play too much video games.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:09:00 2013 No.6111986

>>6111815
>Many supporters of the space program have placed great stock in the benefits of technological spinoff from the space effort for the American economy. Proponents estimates of the rate of return from NASA spending range from $7 in return from every $1 of NASA spending (Lyttle, David, "Is Space Our Destiny?" Astronomy, February 1991, page 6) to $23 in return for every $1 of NASA spending (Chase Econometric Associates, "The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending," prepared under NASA contract NASW-2741, April 1976).

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:13:00 2013 No.6111990

>>6111961
Except that space programs are great catalysts for technological innovations. Which in turn create more revenue for the government due to increased economic activity and widened tax bases. Investments in R&D, infrastructure, healthcare, and education are vital to a healthy, stable economy.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:23:30 2013 No.6112006
File: 75 KB, 376x371, totaltheta.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6111076

Add to that increased public interest in STEM related fields, and a sense of community/something to look forward too/larger than going to work, bars and barbecuing.

Side note: Pic related, can you find theta just based on the diagram? (between x axis and F1)

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:31:30 2013 No.6112021

This will sound callous, bit I don't really care. I think it is better to spend money on something that will advance the whole of the human race instead of spending money focusing on a few solitary people.

Secondly, NASA has a paltry budget, compared to war spending. I think the number was something like a day of war spending was more than NASAs budget for a year. In fact most scientific institutes are chronically underfunded in this society. I simply cannot fathom how anyone can allow these institutes that have provided so much to the country, and to the world itself to be left destitute. I think it shows a deeply flawed understanding of what makes a nation relevant in the twenty first century.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:34:29 2013 No.6112029 >>6112006 (and only using the 45 and 60 degree angles/0

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:37:29 2013 No.6112032 File: 96 KB, 944x712, 1379783078534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111034 >ITT: Murricans complaining about the NASA funds and the homeless people while they spend billions of dollars in useless wars and army Toppest kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:41:30 2013 No.6112037 File: 25 KB, 928x1031, 1379043446950.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6112021 Pic related

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:41:30 2013 No.6112038

>>6111961

It helps humans to better understand our own planet, how factors that could potentially happen on Earth have devastated others such as Mars/Venus, improves populations general scientific interest, improves international relations/cooperation, paves the way to potential economics benefits in the future, possibility of secondary planet for humans to live on, can confirm that we are not one isolated planet with life on it, and gives us a scale/reference point on how insignificant we really are. Also provides useful tools for Americas military (not necessarily a good thing).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:46:16 2013 No.6112044 >>6112032 The military budget is justified. If we didn't intervene in Serbia, we'd be in the middle of WWIII right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:48:46 2013 No.6112047 >>6112044 See>>6112037 Please stop trusting to all the bs that passes on tv.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:50:45 2013 No.6112050 >>6112047 Yeah I agree with this; not that you should wear a tinfoil hat but a little bit of skepticism is good.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:51:16 2013 No.6112054

>>6111034
In many, though not all cases homelessness is due of a person is due to personal failures in their life, bad decisions. I don't really feel inclined to enable bad decisions. They should work to pull themselves out of the slump as that would indicate they have made a real commitment to better themselves.

Obviously this isn't the reason why everyone is homeless and if could perhaps donate on a case by case basis perhaps I would but no such system exists and in light of that I would prefer my money go towards the space program.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:51:46 2013 No.6112055 >>6112038 >It helps humans to better understand our own planet I'm pretty sure space telescopes can't see the Earth's core.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:55:45 2013 No.6112058 >>6112055 read after the misplaced comma.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 14:56:16 2013 No.6112061 >>6112055 And if you didn't realize this, telescopes are only a small part of what NASA does.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:00:15 2013 No.6112066 >Eurotrash have modernized infrastructure and social programs >only a minimal budget for space programs Meanwhile some people here can only get dial up and NASA already has a bloated budget. The hypocrisy of eurotrash irks me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:16:45 2013 No.6112086 >>6112055 They can't. I'm an undergraduate and seismology and radiometric dating don't benefit from space exploration at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:22:45 2013 No.6112097 >>6112086 Because refining our theories on planet formation have no value at all for learning about the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:37:04 2013 No.6112112 File: 133 KB, 742x659, anomalocaris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >1. Having Freedom >2. Discovering shrimps live in Europa I can enjoy freedom right now. Option 2 does nothing for me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:40:06 2013 No.6112114 >>6112112 And it's impossible to have both, amirite?

>>	I'm not special Thu Oct 24 15:45:05 2013 No.6112121 Because Fuck You. Space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:00:35 2013 No.6112153 >>6111187 cut the guy's dick off foreals

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:03:35 2013 No.6112158 because the homeless people would spend that money on crack

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:04:36 2013 No.6112164 >>6112037 Thank you for the chart anon, I couldn't exactly recall the budget imbalance but I knew it was very large.

Violent Simians Guy Thu Oct 24 16:11:34 2013 No.6112177

>>6112021

Did you ever consider it's you that has the problem? Sum all the special interests and you get a big budget. That leads to big borrowing.

A rational man puts his own interests and biases aside when there's a larger issue at work, namely the bankruptcy of the US federal system.

In short, for every wanker like you who cries that NASA is being shortchanged, there are 9 other people who believe SS, Medicare/Medicaid, the military, etc. are also being shortchanged. So spending becomes so heavy that perpetual borrowing becomes the norm. Then the nation collapses.

A child could see this, but a child is unlike you: HONEST WITH HIMSELF.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:14:05 2013 No.6112180 >>6112177 So giving money to the 2.3m homeless will prevent U.S bankruptcy? Okay tripfag.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:17:34 2013 No.6112183 >>6111773 >multiplier effect of putting money back into the economy and technological innovation >waste No. NASA contributes far more to the GDP than their budget.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:18:05 2013 No.6112185 >>6112177 Also its pretty clear to everyone but some dumb Americans that the military is a money pitt, and that money should go towards more meaningful causes that actually improve quality of life such as the majority of your states examples.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:18:35 2013 No.6112187 File: 25 KB, 322x400, Catstronaut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying money not given to NASA would go to poverty relief >implying there are not better programs to cut in order to free up funding >implying a false dichotomy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:21:05 2013 No.6112193 >>6112177 You would call this(>>6112037 ), a shortchanged defense budget? This is not some sort of perceived slight, it is very basic numbers.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:23:04 2013 No.6112195

>>6112180
well, it would increase consumer spending since more money comes from rich people than poor people to give to the homeless and therefore money that the rich would have been saving instead of spending is now put in the hands of very motivated buyers who will spend all of it. This increases overall consumer spending which increases economic growth which would lead to higher taxes being able to be levied without hurting the economy/people and the US would avoid bankruptcy, so yes, giving money to the homeless would prevent US bankruptcy as long as taxes are increased when the populous is more able to pay them, which we all know will never happen because people think taxation is theft and will never raise taxes just to avoid a massive debt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:28:05 2013 No.6112207 File: 244 KB, 500x500, 3613615240_51ae9f1bca[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6112193 not to mention, the Republicans want to give the DoD more money than they're even asking for.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:28:34 2013 No.6112208

>>6112195

I am aware of basic economic principles. However a (generous) multiplier of oh say 3x would only result in getting back around 30% of original sum spent in taxes (fairly short term). It will spur the economy, not the government unless your able to get those 2.1m stable jobs for the amount thats put in (you wont)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:31:35 2013 No.6112214 >>6111086 >implying people with degrees can't be homeless. Homelessness isn't a problem bound to people with a certain level of intelligence or capability.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:32:04 2013 No.6112215 >>6112208 By reducing poverty you also reduce crime rates, which also helps with economic activity

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:34:35 2013 No.6112216

Any American who values knowledge supports NASA, I count myself as one of them..

...but it's not the right time for going to space. We need space elevators and faster propulsion technology. That's going to take three or four centuries. Until then all scientific space programs should be moth balled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:37:04 2013 No.6112218 >>6112215 But the US loves sending people to prison to spur their prison industrial complex.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:38:35 2013 No.6112220 Nobody's giving me money, why should my taxes go to people who don't work when they can go to science, which contributes to the advance of human beings?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:38:35 2013 No.6112221 >>6112216 Because sending people into space are the only purpose for space programs

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:39:35 2013 No.6112222 >>6112216 >Faster propulsion technology Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with NASA.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:39:35 2013 No.6112224 File: 58 KB, 820x600, 1381241621466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Nasa doesn't get shit for funding. Cut military spending just a wee bit and you already have more than the nasa budget.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:40:05 2013 No.6112225 >>6112221 Sagan makes some good points on the stupidity of continually sending people to space. Should have stopped after The first Apollo landing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:41:34 2013 No.6112228 >>6112224 Try to cut money from the military and all the conservatives will jump to your fucking neck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:43:05 2013 No.6112229 >>6112224 1% of the US Federal budget is a huge amount of money.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:43:05 2013 No.6112230 >>6112228 The way the republican party has been running their camp the past 8 years, no one is going to give a fuck. Its like they're trying to look disconnected and total dicks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:44:34 2013 No.6112234 >>6112229 Yes 1% is big. But guess what? 30% is 30 times bigger you tard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:48:05 2013 No.6112238 >>6112234 >>>Nasa doesn't get shit for funding. >>1% of the US Federal budget is a huge amount of money. >30% is 30 times bigger you tard. >>>Ridiculous false claim. >>Obvious correction. >Non sequitur and childish insult.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:53:05 2013 No.6112246 >>6112216 >That's going to take three or four centuries Ocean travel didn't become a thing until the last five centuries. It's very likely that space travel won't be practical for a millennia or longer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:55:35 2013 No.6112249 >>6112238 tard

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:56:35 2013 No.6112250 >>6111034 To send homeless people to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:58:35 2013 No.6112251 >>6112246 Thats because they weren't actively wanting to explore beyond a few areas. Once it started progressing it happened relatively quickly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:59:05 2013 No.6112254 >>6112228 They've pretty much made it clear they'll jump to your fucking neck anyways these days.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:01:04 2013 No.6112256 >>6112250 For science

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:13:35 2013 No.6112276 >>6112208 So we should just levy a new tax only the rich and give directly to the so we get maximum returns while also helping the homeless. It's not like you do it simply to generate money, it just helps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:14:05 2013 No.6112278 >>6112250 >>6112256 I lol'd

Violent Simians Guy Thu Oct 24 17:22:35 2013 No.6112296

>>6112224

You need to listen. You can't run a nation on the idea that the federal budget is governed by the idea of "hey THEY get all the money so MY favorite group should get their own". That's why the federal budget grew about 8.5% annually in the period of 1940-2007, from $9 billion to $3700 billion, but wage growth PLUS population growth was only 3.5% annually. Logically, the federal government was going to BANKRUPT the nation, and you're not going to do any fucking space missions after that, moron.

Violent Simians Guy Thu Oct 24 17:27:35 2013 No.6112309

>>6112220

Because you're just another special interest. How many times do you have to be told this?

People, all your interests are too narrow. The answer is LESS government. That would give the creators of the original tax revenue (the people) their own money back, which they can devote to projects as they please.

I'm a big critic of this private space company paradigm, but I'll say this for the intent: The onus for such things should be created from private pockets. The government has no business throwing billions of dollars away on stupid space missions to places we'll never go anyway. The publci interest is ALWAYS best served by a minimal government.

LOLCAPTCHA: "much succass"

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:30:34 2013 No.6112317

>>6112296

No its the other, disproportionate, counter productive ones (department of defense) that should have their budgets cut, and that money should go towards the other programs (education, NASA, public health etc) and if possible, be a surplus. The pie shouldn't and doesn't have to be larger, it should be effectively distributed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:31:35 2013 No.6112318 I got a better question, why are you worrying about homeless adults in America when there are children in Africa?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:32:04 2013 No.6112321

>>6112309
>I'm a big critic of this private space company paradigm, but I'll say this for the intent: The onus for such things should be created from private pockets. The government has no business throwing billions of dollars away on stupid space missions to places we'll never go anyway.

With this way of thinking, humans would still be living in the caves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:33:04 2013 No.6112323 >>6112309 But their likely wouldn't have been any space companies if it wasn't for governmental agencies. People wont invest unless they know they'll get a timely, competitive, and safe return on investment. Thats why government is needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:33:34 2013 No.6112322 >>6112309 Let me guess, you're a libertarian

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:36:34 2013 No.6112331 >>6112318 Theres children everywhere. its what happens when people make fuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:36:35 2013 No.6112330 >>6112318 Don't worry, we all know that there are children in Africa. We exploit them indirectly everyday to enjoy our expensive and technological lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:38:06 2013 No.6112333 >>6112318 Because the American government should be making its own citizens a top priority before it worries about some third world country on another continent?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:38:06 2013 No.6112334 >>6112318 Why are you worried about children in Africa when there are Africa in children?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:38:35 2013 No.6112337 We can't invest money in anything because there are children starving in Africa.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:40:04 2013 No.6112342 >>6112337 Lets send the african continent into space to kill the aids virus then bring it back with aids free african children

>>	Machinist Thu Oct 24 17:47:04 2013 No.6112357 Development of new and advanced technologies benefits the human race. Homeless people became that way because they offer no benefit to society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:48:35 2013 No.6112359 >>6111034 engineers are competent. explain how money would fix the problem of homelessness

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:48:35 2013 No.6112360

tv135: depending on where it hits it could vaporize millions, destroy entire countries and potentially kick up enough dust to change the earth's climate for years.

this shit is real. and the chance that it will hit earth is falling every day.

nasa should see a masive influx of money right now to fund a mission to change the orbit of this asteroid and spot other potentially hazardous space rox. Plait said that there isnt enough time to do anything about tv-135. Is he right? 20 years is a long time. I mean we developed the technology to go to the moon in less time. why cant we change the orbit of a single 440 meter rock? this shit is absurd to me. what could possibly be more important ?

gmashing lmosam

>>	Machinist Thu Oct 24 18:02:05 2013 No.6112387 >>6112360 If we get killed by an undetected rock from the sky, thats what they call destiny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:05:05 2013 No.6112394 >>6112360 Its 1/11000 chance based on quick wiki article, plus we don't want to get into the habit of redirecting asteroids because the potential military implications

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:06:04 2013 No.6112399
File: 368 KB, 621x464, freedom truck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6112359
>explain how money would fix the problem of homelessness

You could pay the NASA engineers to fix it.

I guarantee they would do a better job than whoever the fuck else would be told to do it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:08:06 2013 No.6112403

>>6112394
Have to agree with this.

If we develop the technology to steer asteroids on anything near a collision course with Earth, for each year, it is at least a hundred times more likely to be used to steer an asteroid into a collision course with Earth than to be used to avert a collision.

>>	anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:08:06 2013 No.6112405 Spend money on NASA by taking it away from War, so we don't have to kill so many people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:11:04 2013 No.6112414 It's impossible to divert an asteroid. If a collision occurs in 20 years, the only two options we have are turning to God and building underground habitats that you'll get access to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:12:35 2013 No.6112415 >>6112414 wat

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:14:34 2013 No.6112424

>>6112403
It's just another nuke. The US, China, Russia, France, Britain, India and Pakistan can all do far more damage, much more predictably, at a much lower cost, and much faster than redirecting an asteroid. As long as only those nations develop the ability to use the technology, there's no increase in danger.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:17:05 2013 No.6112428 >>6112414 All we need is Bruce Willis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:19:05 2013 No.6112432 >>6112403 >it is at least a hundred times more likely to be used to Admit it, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:21:04 2013 No.6112438 >>6111034 there's room for 2.3 million people on the moon, plus there are no drugs so it solves their drug problems too

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:21:35 2013 No.6112439 We need poor people.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:26:34 2013 No.6112445

>>6112394
I think it fell from 1 in 60k to 1 in 9000. Plait said it happened to apophis too as they zeroed in on its orbit but it still scares the crap outta me. It seems pretty obvious that these medium sized asteroids are far more common than science once thought. Steering them away from us seems like something we are going to have to learn to do as earth gets more congested with people. And you better believe they will start dumping monies when one does hit us or is labeled an 8 on the toreno scale.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:27:05 2013 No.6112446

Well lets see- what if we get rid of lobbyists so politicians will actually listen to what the people want, keep manufacturing in the US by increasing tariffs, (I mean we're hated by every other country anyway right?), increase spending on education so less homeless (except the mentally ill, which we don't treat) and create jobs for thousands by spending more on space?
It doesn't even matter if we get a return on it or not, education in sciences + all secondary jobs like janitorial etc = prob solved!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:28:04 2013 No.6112448 >>6112432 Lel this. May be the edgiest statement evar uttered on 4 chain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:38:04 2013 No.6112459 >>6112432 Major meteor impacts are vanishingly rare. Major wars have been quite frequent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:38:04 2013 No.6112460 >>6112446 Actually suggesting tariffs You didn't learn anything from the great depression, did you?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:43:35 2013 No.6112463

Columbus: "I have an idea to explore the unknown hopefully opening the way for new trade routs, stimulate technological advancement, and open the door for countless future discoveries. All i need is the start up funds...."

Spanish Monarchy: "Nah, we should use the money to feed and house the degenerate beggars who will never contribute anything to society."

RIP modern world

Science advocates: "I have an idea to explore the unknown hopefully opening the way for new economic opportunities like asteroid mining, stimulate technological advancement as been proven by the space race so far, and open the door for countless future discoveries. All i need is the start up funds...."

Fags like OP: "Nah, we should use the money to feed and house the millions of illegal aliens and degenerate niggers who will never contribute anything to society."

RIP humanity

die in a fire OP, die fucking slow

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:52:34 2013 No.6112478 >>6112460 Hello? We might as well almost be in a depression now and sending all our manufacturing to other nations sure has help us peons. Look at the textile industry alone. Oh right we don't have one anymore.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:55:34 2013 No.6112483

>>6112478

No one will buy Americas things, international trade halts, countries no longer specialize in industries. Maybe America should educate their population better so they don't have to fucking make textiles like you suggest would be a good thing, and you know actually a skilled population to accomplish something meaningful other than making fucking t shirts and tennis shoes. Tariffs just fuck over everybody and reduce their quality of life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:58:04 2013 No.6112486 >>6112463 Your grasp of history is breathtaking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:58:34 2013 No.6112488 NASA is and has always been an arm of the military. By creating a "space agency", they fool the taxpayers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:59:35 2013 No.6112490 >>6112486 my grasp on your mom's dick took her breath away faggot. enjoy paying for the poor instead of space you butt licker

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:01:04 2013 No.6112491 >>6112488 It does have military applications but they do get tons of cool science shit done. In what way were things like the Voyagers benefiting the military? Maybe during the 60's as ICBM and spy satellites were coming into use. Not so much today.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:05:37 2013 No.6112496 Comparing Columbus's voyage to this sci-fi bullshit is stupid. The technology was there, there were people to trade with, and plenty of resources like fertile land and precious metals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:07:37 2013 No.6112498 >>6112496 You'll never meet ET riding a bicycle with that attitude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:08:37 2013 No.6112500 >>6112496 >not realizing we have had the technology to go to mars since the 70's >not realizing the vast resources that are just floating up there waiting to be exploited

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:11:36 2013 No.6112501

>space travel takes too long
>don't have adequate protection against cosmic hazards
>can only send a handful of people anywhere
>expensive

Mankind will always be restricted to earth. I think it's worthwhile to divert funds for space to advance virtual reality technology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:16:07 2013 No.6112505 >>6112501 We have had nuclear powered rockets and ion thrusters. Virtual reality is something that should be invested into heavily as well though. Exploration for the time being should be done by unmanned robots.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:18:44 2013 No.6112507 Columbus was a mass murdering crackpot who contributed nothing substantial to civilization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:19:14 2013 No.6112511 >>6112501 >sea travel by wind powered ships take too long >don't have adequate protection against environmental hazards >can send only a handful of explorers/conquistadors anywhere >expensive Westerners will always be restricted to europe.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:20:13 2013 No.6112514

>>6112483
FYI tariffs weren't even a big source of revenue at the time of the depression and are you saying that was a cause? Uh uh. Nope. Even when we educate the population, which we need, not all have the IQ to grasp higher education. Ergo textiles and fast food.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:23:14 2013 No.6112519 You have 5 seconds to justify your purchase of anything Apple branded / new clothes / nice food / movie tickets / cable television when there are 2.3 million homeless people in America. Are you really that selfish?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:23:14 2013 No.6112520 there are two ways to make the world better; decreasing how shitty it is and increasing how good it is, they are not the same. increasing how good the world is is significantly easier than decreasing how much it sucks, and NASA makes it better.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:29:43 2013 No.6112531 File: 28 KB, 450x450, WTcPF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6111034 /thread

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:30:13 2013 No.6112533

>>6112514

Yes, It was a cause it worsened trade. The source of countries wealth nowadays is a result of being able to trade internationally, allowing for cheap labor, good banking systems, good natural resource extraction, good agriculture etc from specialization. When a country puts up tariffs, it worsens relations between trading partners and the country imports less of those goods and puts up tariffs of their own. Predictably, this doesn't have good results. It might not have been the primary cause, but it sure caused it to take longer to clear up then it should have. Most the people doing menial labor would be there because of laziness/poor choices/poor families. Of course theres people who are because of things such as mental illness or bad luck, but they're a minority and there will still need to be some degree of menial labor needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Don't spout shit when you don't know shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:31:13 2013 No.6112534 Colonizing space now could lead to extraterrestrial separatists declaring war on earth. We should wait until the world is united into one nation and everybody is so mixed that ethnicities no longer exist.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:39:44 2013 No.6112550

Entire NASA budget from it's beginning to 2010: $526.18 billion

Bank bailout of 2008:
$700 billion

Nasa has spent less in it's entire existence than the US spent IN ONE YEAR on TARP. Fuck everyone who think it's a waste of money. Have you seen the US defense budget? NASA ain't shit. And it's a god damned shame.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:44:44 2013 No.6112553 >>6112534 >wait until the world is united into one nation will never happen. >extraterrestrial separatists declaring war on earth who cares? we are in it for the species ladies and gentlemen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:49:44 2013 No.6112558 >>6111046 We need "back-up" people on five different planets/habitats in eacho f 7 different stellar systems. Go this in 5 different galaxies and I will be able to sleep through the night again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:50:14 2013 No.6112559 >>6111048 >Acting like you can hold a paying job.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:51:14 2013 No.6112561

>>6112511
Nah he's right.
If a ship sinks, there are many possibilities for survival: lifeboats, clinging to plank, even swimming to shore. In space, one fuck up and you're dead.

In space, one fuck and you're dead. Everything is trying to kill you, it takes too much resources just to stay alive.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:53:44 2013 No.6112563 >>6112550 We need banks. We don't need to know there's ice on mars.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:56:14 2013 No.6112568

>>6112561

as usual your narrow mindedness prevents you from accounting for the miracles of technological advancement

also

>implying space ships don't have lifeboats

also

>implying no-body ever died trying to cross the oceans. So if there is a chance of failure, the entire exercise is too risky to even attempt

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:00:45 2013 No.6112581 >>6112561 Implying you would survive if you were on a lifeboat in the middle of the atlantic 500 years ago,

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:01:45 2013 No.6112584 >>6111034 >giving money to the homeless >implying that will help Poverty will always exist in a capitalist system. The money would go back to the rich people after some time, since they cause poverty after all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:02:43 2013 No.6112587 >>6112563 >We need banks. top laughter. good goy you don't know what we could find on mars, or any other body for that matter. not looking is the dumbest thing we can do. you miss 100% of the shots you dont take

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:06:13 2013 No.6112594 >>6112568 Yea just look at Columbia. The world doesn't work like your video games. Grow up.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:08:14 2013 No.6112599

>>6112594

Mistakes happen. The ISS, Saturn V, and Russian rockets all really do have escape pods.

>thinking nobody will ever die when pushing the limits of exploration
>thinking this is a valid reason to bury our heads in the sand and not even try in the first place

grow up

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:21:14 2013 No.6112627 >>6112599 That's just for bailing out if something goes wrong on the initial launch to orbit. It's more like a parachute than a lifeboat. There's not going to be any lifeboat on anything like a trip to Mars.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:25:43 2013 No.6112632

>>6112627

how the fuck can you possibly comment on that?

thats like some viking saying 700 years in the future there will be no way you can EVER bail out on a voyage across the atlantic because he has no concept of things like radios, airplanes and GPS

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:26:44 2013 No.6112634 >>6112561 >clinging to plank Funnily that's how Columbus survived and landed in Portugal when the French sunk a ship he was on. A space Columbus would have drifted into doom.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:27:44 2013 No.6112635 >>6112632 So now you're talking about maybe going to Mars 700 years in the future? That's no reason to fund NASA today.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:29:43 2013 No.6112637 >>6112550 its a tarp

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:58:13 2013 No.6112692 >>6112635 yep, no reason to research making boats now because sea travel won't happen until the future

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:49:48 2013 No.6113017 We should stop giving money to scientists so they have no jobs and become homeless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:56:43 2013 No.6113023 ITT: Faggots get trolololololed

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:03:45 2013 No.6113033

>>6112627
Not him, but that strikes me as little different than the fact that a lifeboat would have been functionally useless if the ship got wrecked in a storm in the age of sail, unless you were relatively close to land to begin with.
>>6112635
The vikings crossed the atlantic without failsafes to really speak of. And succeeded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:04:45 2013 No.6113036 Because nasa costs nothing compared to giving homes to the homeless. Might as well not even spend money on anything because there are starving people in africa.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:11:00 2013 No.6113046 >>6112224 >The government cares more about being able to one shot every other nation instantly than actually making their people smart

>>	PJ Fri Oct 25 00:24:30 2013 No.6113064 Shut it down! Privatize

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:31:30 2013 No.6113077
File: 76 KB, 413x605, world with no gas stations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6112561
>>In space, one fuck and you're dead
The MIR space station had a fire hot enough to melt metal and send it flying about. The crew was able to get it under control and were able to continue the mission. That's a pretty big fuck, yet no one died.
http://www.universetoday.com/100229/fire-how-the-mir-incident-changed-space-station-safety/

>>it takes too much resources just to stay alive
the way we do space travel is fundamentally flawed, we carry everything we need up there including fuel for the trip back and throw most of it away when we get there.

We do this because we don't have any infrastructure up there. The more infrastructure we have in place, the less resources we need to send up.

>>6112594
>>Columbia
Space capsules are superior to space planes when it comes to safety. The Soyuz space capsule can, and has reentered upside down:
http://www.universetoday.com/13820/soyuz-capsule-hatch-nearly-failed-and-crews-lives-were-on-a-razors-edge/

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:35:01 2013 No.6113082
File: 67 KB, 1053x718, moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6113077
If we put a refueling station on the moon, id hope we can put a light on it bright enough to be at least faintly seen from earth during night, when its on the dark side
for symbolic value you see.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:37:31 2013 No.6113086

>>6112635
>>6112632
The vikings did it far before one might have said that.
Fuck, you talking about this has actually made me consider it MORE like crossing the atlantic than I first though. Not totally so for a number of reasons, such as mars being a barren waste instead of a second earth, yet still youve managed to make me think of it MORE like that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:37:31 2013 No.6113089 File: 1.66 MB, 220x190, 1380947261297.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6113064

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:40:01 2013 No.6113093

You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on The Military when there are 2.3 million homeless people in America.

You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on Foreign Aid when there are 2.3 million homeless people in America.

You have 10 seconds to justify spending more money on large corporations, farming subsidies, immigration services, religious tax breaks, or any number of things that are hundreds, even -thousands-, of times more expensive than NASA.

We pay more on interest to being in debt than we do on NASA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:47:02 2013 No.6113109 >>6111051 >Do you want the first flag planted on Mars to be China's? >implying europe doesn't outperform both of you

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:15:01 2013 No.6113138 >>6113023 I love that meme, its epicxD

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:18:31 2013 No.6113147

>>6113093

I agree with most of your points but on the topic of foreign aid, most people appear to have the incorrect idea that giving foreign aid to developing nations is just a cash handout for free, which is mostly not the case.

Foreign aid usually comes in the form of some sort of development assistance. Sometimes there's political or business agreements as part of the deal. For example, the US will "aid" a nation a certain sum of money, if it will import form US arms industry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:51:30 2013 No.6113181 >>6113147 I didn't say any of those were bad. They're just examples of why we shouldn't use homelessness, or unemployment, as a measure of something's worth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:55:00 2013 No.6113185 >>6113181 of course, but that should be a given. theres no way OP wasnt just trying to troll. that argument is terrible.

>>	Talimar Fri Oct 25 02:47:59 2013 No.6113221 2.3 million more jobs.... at NASA!

OP is retarded Anonymous Fri Oct 25 10:26:14 2013 No.6113540
File: 31 KB, 310x277, 1361237408866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6111034
would you like the human race to go extinct? overpopulation well help cause that, while space colonization/exploitation will delay it.

pic related, op

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:44:18 2013 No.6113890

Why aren't we sterilizing Africans in exchange for a bike and food aid,instead of giving them food without any requirements?

Why should we complain about over population,when our aid increases their population past the point of how they're able to feed it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:45:19 2013 No.6113892 >>6113890 That's not foreign aid works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:47:18 2013 No.6113895 >>6113109 Europe is a joke. They have no meaningful space program and have acomplished nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:55:49 2013 No.6113910 >>6113895 They invented flag-planting, though. They already conquered one world with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:03:49 2013 No.6113929 >>6113895 well we created USA, but that kinda proves your point.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:21:48 2013 No.6113959

>muh jobs
>muh homeless
>muh poverty

Fagscum like you hold scientific progress back. Fuck you. Go suck dick for some money if you need it. We have limited time on Earth and our future is unpredictable. We need to spend and advance and spread life to all of space, and your pathetic, whiny ass not only bares no contribution to society but is the least important concern of ours.

Tl;dr- go fuck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:53:19 2013 No.6113983 send the homeless to mars. boom, no more homeless problem.

>>	Violent Simians Guy Fri Oct 25 16:19:19 2013 No.6114016 >>6113959 Hey tough guy, NASA's the one sucking dick for money. That's the problem. When you suck a dick for money, it's obvious that you make no economic contribution to society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 16:37:50 2013 No.6114047 >>6112224 a lot of the defense money goes to R&D. RAND corporation has a history of great contribution to game theory. Nuclear technology, computers, microwave, GPS were all developed for military use.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 16:38:48 2013 No.6114052 >>6114047 >great contribution to game theory all these moneys and it's still just a theory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 19:24:36 2013 No.6114308 >>6111034 I think the real question is, why are we spending most of the budget on the military when we have homelessness and NASA to fund. Fucking military scum.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 19:47:06 2013 No.6114360 >>6114016 did you just imply NASA has made no economic contribution to society? Because if you did you are the dumbest person living in the modern world which was in large part build by the space race

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:16:12 2013 No.6115129 >>6114016 >sucking dick >suck a dick You seem to know a lot about this, Anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:50:02 2013 No.6115457 >>6115129 You dont suck dick? What are you, a fag?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math