An instrument aboard the International Space Station detected the possible presence of dark matter in outer space this week, which could prove illuminating — pun intended — in regard to current theories about the cosmos.
The 7.5-ton device entered space aboard the last flight of the space shuttle Endeavor in 2011, according to the Washington Post. This project was the result of 18 years of research and cost $2 billion, a huge source of controversy given our current economic situation.
Many believe the funds expended by NASA could be put to better use elsewhere. We’ve all heard the age-old argument “Focus on this planet before you move on to the other ones.”
But critics are unaware space exploration is responsible for many of the technological developments we enjoy today.
Along with increased knowledge about the world outside our stratosphere, our lives have been changed irrevocably with the use of satellites. Satellites are responsible for GPS, satellite phones and the internet. They allow us to forecast the weather with more accuracy and interpret changes in weather patterns — better preparing us for natural disasters and calamities.
NASA employs thousands of scientists and technicians and invests in major companies such as Boeing, which helps stimulate the economy. In addition, the field of medicine has been greatly impacted by space exploration. A water purification device for astronauts was slightly altered to help sufferers of kidney disease, and analyzing the flow of fluid around a space shuttle helped scientists form the first heart pump.
Each of these inventions and advances was made possible — was enabled — by space exploration.
The NASA budget estimate for 2012 was about $19 billion, according to NASA’s website. In comparison, the Huffington Post reports U.S. military spending in 2011 to be more than $695 billion. China, the next biggest military power, is outspent by the United States by a ratio of 6 to 1. Military spending would be a better place to cut than NASA.
However, sharply cutting military spending is not the best solution either, as the Department of Defense serves a critical research and development purpose — spawning other technologies we depend on today. Reducing military spending gradually and investing those dollars in citizen-based programs would provide us with more funds for internal improvement without costly economic ramifications.
Space exploration represents a frontier full of innovation and invention, and as such, it demands adequate funding to ensure the next generation benefits from its advances.
Military cuts should be made before NASA
April 8, 2013
jethrObama • Apr 9, 2013 at 7:46 am
I agree that private enterprise should pick up where NASA left off. Especially since NASA is nothing more than a political football. However some things like particle research and propulsion research will not be picked up by private enterprise since the price tag is too big.
We must face the facts that entitlements, not the constitutionally mandated military, are the problem. Fund the military, fund NASA research, cut entitlements.
jethrObama • Apr 9, 2013 at 7:46 am
I agree that private enterprise should pick up where NASA left off. Especially since NASA is nothing more than a political football. However some things like particle research and propulsion research will not be picked up by private enterprise since the price tag is too big.
We must face the facts that entitlements, not the constitutionally mandated military, are the problem. Fund the military, fund NASA research, cut entitlements.
Mr. Anonymous • Apr 9, 2013 at 5:42 am
Ok, so while we are fighting 2 wars… you want to cut the military… but fund NASA. I like NASA. But ending NASA doesn’t mean ending space exploration. Some of that can be picked up by commercial and private enterprise. There is no private enterprise to pick up the job the military does. And if the military stops doing its thing… people die. Ever thought of that?
Common Sense • Apr 9, 2013 at 11:03 am
As a result of the military doing it’s thing, people die. Indeed, that’s the job of the military. Meanwhile, there is not significant evidence that the current work of the military saves any American lives. Given the evidence that militarism, occupation, and civilian casualties generate blowback (See the research of Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer, Chalmers Johnson, and the study “Living Under Drones” for some concrete evidence for this), it may well be that the military’s current work not only kills people abroad but increases risk to Americans at home.
So, yes, I have thought of your conjecture, but it’s at this point an unsupported conjecture.
We don’t know that “if the military stops doing its thing… people die.”
We do know that if the military keeps doing its thing people die.
Mr. Anonymous • Apr 9, 2013 at 5:42 am
Ok, so while we are fighting 2 wars… you want to cut the military… but fund NASA. I like NASA. But ending NASA doesn’t mean ending space exploration. Some of that can be picked up by commercial and private enterprise. There is no private enterprise to pick up the job the military does. And if the military stops doing its thing… people die. Ever thought of that?
Common Sense • Apr 9, 2013 at 11:03 am
As a result of the military doing it’s thing, people die. Indeed, that’s the job of the military. Meanwhile, there is not significant evidence that the current work of the military saves any American lives. Given the evidence that militarism, occupation, and civilian casualties generate blowback (See the research of Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer, Chalmers Johnson, and the study “Living Under Drones” for some concrete evidence for this), it may well be that the military’s current work not only kills people abroad but increases risk to Americans at home.
So, yes, I have thought of your conjecture, but it’s at this point an unsupported conjecture.
We don’t know that “if the military stops doing its thing… people die.”
We do know that if the military keeps doing its thing people die.