Is NASA spending a waste?


You read more into my post than was actually there. Yes, keep sending the rovers, the telescopes, and the sensors into space, and keep up the monitoring, research, and development, but the manned space program is an unnecessary luxury. And yes, I realize that paying off the debt will require a complete financial restructuring of the entire economy, not just a reallocation of NASA funding. However, at the moment the manned space program is the equivalent of someone $100,000 in debt on a fixed retirement income having an unlimited cable TV subscription.



I miss Ron Paul too. I also liked Dennis Kucinich. I agree there is too much group think.


Justify ‘private anything is always better’. Or to reverse your challenge, name something private industries does that public industry couldn’t do better. And I’m expecting you to use the same standards here, not whether it does do it better but whether it’s possible.


Many of which are publicly funded or receive public research grants.


Depends on if that subscription also yields benefits.


Government surely isn’t perfect, but either is private. I could name plenty of reasons, but I’m not writing a book. When I hear comments that advocate for an extreme capitalistic society, they seem to be rooted in far-right political ideology and motivated as such. This may not be the case here, but it has the markings of the possibility.

All great work is not done under the guidance of a balls-to-the-wall, stress-to-the-max, money-motivated system.


What LayLow means is that there’s a lot of potentially beneficial stuff that isn’t potentially worth much to a private business because they can’t make enough money out of it.

That’s why patents were invented by the way, to give an incentive to private profit-seeking researchers


The US military budget for 2016 was almost 600 billion. The requested NASA budget for 2017 was slightly over 18 billion.

It seems to me that we do get some solid returns out of that, but it’s value is not always realized right away. Processes and innovations discovered along the way seem to offer the biggest returns.

There is also evidence on Mars that at least suggests that it once was, as Earth is now. What happened? These are questions that could lead to a better understanding of our own planet.

An unforeseen space event may one day take place, that we may better understand as a result of todays exploration, and this could include solar events as well. If we see another flare coming like the 1859 Carrington Event, we might have some time better prepare and save world wide assets, as a result of what we are learning now. If that proved to be true, every penny ever spent in space will have paid off just with that one successful preparatory action. You see where I am gong with this.


It’s not a waste.

Humanity obviously will not come together anytime soon under the umbrella of Catholicism, but I think a majority could find common ground if we were to…say…have a planetary effort to put a man on Mars or colonize the moon. Then we can convert them!


…or the return on investment will outlive the owners.


Yes exactly. Nice to be on the same page!


The reason private is always better is it allows the individual to decide whether he wants to participate. It is better simply because it doesn’t force anyone to support something he doesn’t want to.

In the real world the weight of experience is that private it always better. Very reasonable arguments can be made for which this is so. The only argument for public enterprises is that private interests won’t do it. This can be true. But the reason private interests won’t do it is always because people don’t see any personal value in it. Public activity is always forcing people to support something they don’t want to.

What this means is that no one sees real value in the activity. Like I said curiosity is great. Ironically private property and limited government have been the best source for great advancements. Rich people have money to spend on risky pursuits.


People are free to leave the country are they not?


It’s forcing people to support the system they choose to live in and benefit from.


The would be akin to saying that the parents’ command to the child is bad, because the child is forced to do something they do not want to do.

That is inherently false in numerous ways.


Depends on the home country and destination country. But why should you have to leave your home because of the government?

I didn’t chose to be born where I was. I didn’t chose the form of government. This is all imposed on me.

That is an excellent point. That raises an issue I’ve thought a lot about. Government, parenthood, and slavery all rely on the concept that due to the accident of birth you have to obey an authority and labor for it. The question is are there any limits to these institutions? If so how what are they and how do you know that?


Well if you want to be an individual, but also part of something bigger, you need some level of compliance for the greater good of the group. How that is measured is the question of all organized societies.


You don’t. But if you stay you’re accepting the system and agreeing to work in the system to change it. It’s nonetheless not imposed on you, because you can opt out any time you want.


I can’t opt out of it. I can’t secede my property from the federal, state or local government. Contracts are made by mutual agreement. They aren’t made by one party saying if you don’t abandon your home you agree to these rules.


I think what was meant is the old saying, "‘Murica. Love it or leave it.’

I didn’t think it made much sense with the right was using it either.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit