(05-29-2020 07:42 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:31 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Isn't not supporting NASA space flights & the like usually a Democrat thing? If so, consider me a Democrat on NASA space flights. Seems like a waste of money to me.

I don't know what their position is lately, but I would think that you would find some support for space exploration among those in "the party of science" ™ but perhaps the current crop of far lefties would rather spend the money on social justice crap. Adjusted for inflation, the amount we're spending on NASA is a drop in the bucket compared with even two decades ago.

There is a lot of technology transfer that occurs due to the space program. A lot less now than before but that's because we haven't done a lot of manned flights other than shuttling to the ISS. We've had to catch rides on the Russians' rockets since we shut down the Shuttle program. If these private ventures prove reliable, it will be good to not depend on the Russkies anymore.

In the lull since stopping shuttle flights, we've concentrated on unmanned space science vs manned flights. That has always been the tension within NASA. But the real truth is that if you want public support, manned space missions are what does it. People want to see humans exploring places we've never been to. The counter argument is that manned missions are much more costly and no matter what the stated mission is, the primary mission becomes getting the astronauts back safely. Unmanned missions don't need life support systems and are therefore cheaper to conduct which means we can do more with the same amount of $$..

The vision for the future (?) is a manned moon base and the possibility of synthesizing our own rocket fuel from water found on the moon and then using it as a 'gas station' to go farther, eventually to Mars. Because gravity is about 1/6 of Earth's a lot less energy (fuel load) is required to blast off from our moon than here on Earth.

If you look at the U.S. budget, NASA is not a large item. I can find numerous programs that are less useful and cost more.

Usually they want the money to go to social programs.

I believe the 'science-y' ones are still for launching unmanned craft (but with the purpose of trying to study the Big Bang & hunt for extra-terrestrial life & other pointless endeavors that)