i'm not sure if where this topic should go so i'm just gonna put into general


i have to write and argumentative essay on whether or not nasa is a waste, and i cant find any good sources. if any one could help me out itd be much appreciated.

Yes it is.

You can cite me if you wish.

well, there is a theory that is called "the utterly dismal theory" by Garret harden, that basically says: since the the only check on human population growth is misery and starvation, we will inevitably end up with misery and starvation. (<-- is called the dismal) (utterly dismal---->) any technology that allows us to increase our population (better health care, better farming, ect) will only create a greater total misery, as it allows more people to reach misery and starvation. so, since any money that is spent on health care or farming (which are two things people suggest we spend our nasa funding on) essentially does more harm than good while we have no population control, we should spend the money on something like exploration of the universe.

basically, since our current society is fucked anyway, we may as well spend the money on something like NASA. after all, we have less than a billion years left on this rock, and if we humans want to preserve our selves we will have to take to space. another viable planet is not going to come to us, we have to get off our collective asses and go after it.

you can cite/quote me if you like.

NASA is the giant repository of money that goes into finding the faults and the good in any future space program. If this one is inefficient, and shitty, and it tends to be, it lets us learn. We now know how complicated a "cheaper" space shuttle really is when a nation's image rides on it, and thus how expensive it is. We've funded research that although serves no immediate purpose, it is on the shelves for a future dreamer to weave into a master plan. An interplanetary long-term cruiser, for instance. A cheap surface-to-orbit method. A system to alter and shape asteroid trajetories for future resources and/or habitats. All these things need research, almost undecypherable, and all that research needs researchers and testers, who need the funding to preform such development.

In the end, it will all pay off. Funding NASA could literally be funding a future.

could yall give me links to sites for info

could yall give me links to sites for info

I think you can find all the information you need here (www.google.com).

thanks but i've been googleing for like 2 hours and can come up with 1 decent site against nasa

Rather then try and find sites that put a negative spin on NASA, why not just compare them against other space agencies?

For instance, Energia (Russia), and ESA (Europe) are two good institutions for comparison.

First, try and find out their budgets, and convert them into a single currency for comparison. Then look at their launch rates, success rates, and notable achievements. (I suggest you pick a period of 5-10 years for this, perhaps the last ten years, 'cos theres a lot of stuff to look at.)

ESA, for instance, have a very small astronaut program, and they don't have a manned vehicle of their own, but they spend their cash on probes instead for exploration. Russia and America (and now China) have a manned program, but this is very expensive, and you could discuss whether this is worthwhile.

Mars missions have been in the news a lot recently, you could contrast expenditures, and successes, and scientific advancement made by various probes, and hash out a bang for buck kinda ratio.

The ESA Arianne programme is a very successful satellite launch business, getting some numbers about revenue here would be good, and contrasting them against other agencies.

Basically, I don't think you can just write about NASAs downside, it has to contrasted against other agencies that do things faster/better/cheaper.

Don't forget the science either. NASA funded the Hubble space telescope, and various other instruments (Ranging from X-Ray, Extreme Utlra Violet, Infra Red as well as optical) and let investigators from all over the world request observation time on these intruments, they are not restricted to US scientists only. NASA provide international scientific support. European satellites offer similar access, and the European model means all satellite data becomes public domain after one year, offered via various web sites (I worked at a site once and helped build one of the first systems to offer public domain satellite data via the WWW).

Maybe this is getting too wide in scope though, and picking one facet might make comparsion easier, as long as you acknowledge that NASA is probably the broadest agency there is, and other agencies don't compete or spend budget in certain areas, allowing them to concentrate on what they do accomplish.