Should NASA be abolished?

[West Aurelia]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

[Ragnarokee]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

It could be demolished in the future if it becomes to expensive to run. If that is the case then the private space industries are going to make a lot more money when it comes to space exploration, but on the other hand private space companies do not have the experience of NASA, they do not have the technology nor the training of NASA. So it (in my opinion) probably won't happen or if it does, not for a while.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Absolutely not.

The private space sector is, and will be, a profit-driven service sector. It cannot produce long-term scientific missions, experiments, or anything that does not involve profit. Only organisations like NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc. could afford to spend billions with no direct return of investment but with long-term scientific benefits for humanity and our understanding of the Universe.

[Isolus Planet]

No way! Definitely not! Governments need to stay ahead in science or they will eventually collapse. There is nothing more important than staying on the leading edge of technology, empires fall when they let themselves get left behind and start looking inwards. (Sorry for using a puppet nation but I really had to comment on this straight away. I am Quilavaland.)

[Desdenea]

Get the national debt in order so NASA won't be such a burden. Stop gathering rocks from mars and look for energy sources. Then we can explore deep space!

[Kilobugya]

Definitely not. NASA is one of the few good things USA actually has, it would be madness to strip it. As for private space "exploration", it'll never replace public exploration, the goals aren't the same at all, the same way private sector will never replace the big public-funded fundamental research projects like CERN or ITER.

[Donut section]

Private enterprise should not be given access to space. Ever. Whilst they have been useful for a while, I cannot see any future where the idea would be anything but a inconvenience at best when we move to the stars.

[The Flood]

No, never.

And NASA's funding should also be multiplied tenfold.

[The Time Alliance]

No, never.

And NASA's funding should also be multiplied tenfold.

And where do you propose we get the money to do that?

[Risottia]

Should NASA be abolished?

Yeah! Please America, do the ESA and RosKosmos this favour! We're already working together at Kourou and we really look forward to the day we will hold together a de facto monopoly on spaceflight! It's gonna to be a huge boost for our economies! We promise we'll hire your surplus of physicists and engineers... (for Romanian standard wages, ofc!)

[Dyakovo]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

No. Thus ends another episode of short answers for stupid questions.

[The Time Alliance]

I frankly feel NASA should have pay cut until America can gte the economy in order. After that the Government can explore Space, but while in this economic state we need to shrink payments to most parts if Government and set up an actual balanced budget.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

NASA is probably unconstitutional, but it serves a legitimate function. Pass a constitutional amendment specifically allowing its existence, or devolve it to companies and the states.

From a purely pragmatic level, it will need to exist to help us reach the stars, colonise other planets and end the future resource crisis. But I must say that the space industry is doing pretty well even with lower funding for NASA.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

No, never.

And NASA's funding should also be multiplied tenfold.

You want $170 billion a year... spent on NASA?

[Kroe]

NASA is probably unconstitutional, but it serves a legitimate function. Pass a constitutional amendment specifically allowing its existence, or devolve it to companies and the states.

From a purely pragmatic level, it will need to exist to help us reach the stars, colonise other planets and end the future resource crisis. But I must say that the space industry is doing pretty well even with lower funding for NASA.

Can I ask where you got the idea that NASA is probably unconstitutional?

[Risottia]

NASA is probably unconstitutional

How so?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I think there are too many who just say "NASA's brilliant, so we should increase its triple/quadruple/tentuple its funding!" This is the wrong attitude. We should spend as little as possible on NASA to get the most out of it as we can. Throwing money at it was never a good idea, and led to inefficiencies, administration problems and frequent over-spending by the Administration. I think all of us want to be able to establish a colony on Mars, but we should aim to to that by examining the facts and the best way of going about it, rather than simply enriching bureaucrats at the expense of everyone else.

[Kroe]

Throwing money at it was never a good idea, and led to inefficiencies, administration problems and frequent over-spending by the Administration.

Can you cite your sources where you got this information?

[The Time Alliance]

NASA is probably unconstitutional

How so?

The Constitution doesn't give the Government power of Space Exploration and all the power not given to the Feds is Constitutionally mandated to the states. Thus NASA (A government organization for space) is unconstitutional unless they make an amendment.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

NASA is probably unconstitutional

How so?

NASA is probably unconstitutional, but it serves a legitimate function. Pass a constitutional amendment specifically allowing its existence, or devolve it to companies and the states.

From a purely pragmatic level, it will need to exist to help us reach the stars, colonise other planets and end the future resource crisis. But I must say that the space industry is doing pretty well even with lower funding for NASA.

Can I ask where you got the idea that NASA is probably unconstitutional?

There's nothing in the enumerated powers explicitly allowing federal funding for science. It says that Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", but this governs patents and copyrights, rather than public funding. I think the only way it could be constitutional is if it was tied specifically to national defense.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Throwing money at it was never a good idea, and led to inefficiencies, administration problems and frequent over-spending by the Administration.

Can you cite your sources where you got this information?

I believe I saw it on a documentary. So no, I don't. I'll try to find a concrete source on that, though.

[The Time Alliance]

Throwing money at it was never a good idea, and led to inefficiencies, administration problems and frequent over-spending by the Administration.

Can you cite your sources where you got this information?

America's Education.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... chievement

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yes, I believe so. SpaceX and other private space companies have shown great potential, and if privatized or abolished, the private industry will have more flexibility and more freedom to act. Private companies will have the incentive to explore deep space through profit, and only increase our scientific knowledge. It would be much better for all of us, while also giving Space Tourism a big plus.

[Kroe]

How so?

Can I ask where you got the idea that NASA is probably unconstitutional?

There's nothing in the enumerated powers explicitly allowing federal funding for science. It says that Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", but this governs patents and copyrights, rather than public funding. I think the only way it could be constitutional is if it was tied specifically to national defense.

Considering the constitution was written in a time where countries where nowhere near as powerful or large as today along with the fact that our founding fathers could have in noway predicated that someday we would venture into space allows the constitution to be interpreted in a way that allows public funding of the constitution. Also I still do not see how it is unconstitutional. I fail to see where in the constitution it says it is unconstitutional which brings me back to the point that ever since it was written the constitution has been interpreted differently by presidents.

[Planeia]

No.

/thread