close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

NASA's budget cuts

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by bigmoney890, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. bigmoney890

    bigmoney890

    1,486
    2
    Nov 8, 2011
    Boone, NC
    The Department of Defense's budget for 2012 : $707.5 billion
    Total Budget of NASA in it's entire 53 years: $526.18 billion

    In just one year the DOD spends more money that NASA has in 53 years. And to top it off, NASA's budget is going to be cut by ~37%. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and everything we are doing to try and stabilize the middle east, although our efforts seem to be in vein. With the national deficit nearing 16 TRILLION, it seems like we have our priorities in order, dont we?

    NASA is responsible for over 6,300 patents including breakthroughs in pacemaker technology, invisible braces, improved missile tracking for defense, scratch resistant eye glass lenses, tempurpedic mattresses, improvements in prosthetic limbs, ear thermometers, and cordless tools just to name a few. It's truly remarkable that all of these innovations came from a department of the government who currently only gets 0.48% of the national budget, and during it's peak in 1966 it only had 4.4% when we were trying to reach the moon. Can you imagine what NASA could do with half of, a third of, or even a tenth of the money allocated to the DOD?

    I realize that a good majority of GT'ers are conservative and support the war in it's entirety; but there has to be some conservatives out there that agree that we should more focus on space and it's benefits of innovations in the process. If anything we should be increasing NASA's budget, not cutting it. But maybe I am mistaken. Anyone out there have any input on the matter?
     

  2. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,391
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    BTW, saying NASA was responsible for much of that stuff isn't really honest. Most of it was developed by private companies FOR NASA.
     
  3. bigmoney890

    bigmoney890

    1,486
    2
    Nov 8, 2011
    Boone, NC
    But NASA holds the patents. Just like the military didnt develop certain firearms, companies designed them FOR the military.
     
  4. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,391
    4,755
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    So why can't the patent royalties fund the program?

    If its such a good investment, isn't that a reasonable question to ask?

    And if it can't, was it really a good investment?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  5. bigmoney890

    bigmoney890

    1,486
    2
    Nov 8, 2011
    Boone, NC
    That's a very good question, and I do not have the answer. But I can say that almost 50% of NASA's budget is allocated just to satellites, leaving the other 50% for research, training, development, and everything else. So basically half of NASA's money is gone before it's spent by just maintaining satellites. I'm guessing there just isnt enough royalties to make up the other half of the expenditures.

    But to me, it seems like the government could find another way to squeeze some extra money to NASA than leaving it up to their own patents. After all, the Department of energy gets $21 Billion for "defense-related" expenses :dunno: