Which deserves a larger budget:
In 2008, NASA had a budget of $17.318 billion or about .6% of the total federal budget. NOAA on the other hand had a budget of 4.1 billion.
Which should our priority be in terms of research?
NOAA
Side Score: 23
|
 |
NASA
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
$17 billion equals .6%? Wow, that's crazy. I believe NOAA should have the larger budget. From NOAA wesite: From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. Does space exploration affect more than one-third of USA's GDP? I doubt it. Research on the climate and weather should take precedence over seeing whether there is life on Mars. Side: NOAA
"From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring"- do news stations not do this? "affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product."- that may be, but adding more money to it will not necessarily give the government more money back. Its not like if we spend more money on researching the worlds weather we will make more money in the future. The NOAA doesn't only research the USA's weather. It researches weather around the world so we are actually spending a portion of our money on surrounding countries. In our society, weather research is less important than space exploration. Also, considering the cost of space exploration, its not a surprise that NASA has a higher budget. Side: NASA
2
points
"do news stations not do this?" with information provided by the National Weather Service (part of the NOAA) better understanding the path of hurricanes and predicting tornadoes better and earlier saves lives and is more important Side: NOAA
2
points
It's not that I have a problem with NASA. I just think we ought to learn more about home before we do a lot of exploring elsewhere. About 5-10% of the oceans have been explored to date. That's a lot of territory where shit might be going on! The oceans helped us discover an entire microcosm that exists without energy from the sun. What other cool things could we learn about the mysteries of life without leaving our own planet? Side: NOAA
"I just think we ought to learn more about home before we do a lot of exploring elsewhere. "- we should learn more about the planet that we have been living on for thousands of years than about planets we have never been to? About 5-10% of the oceans have been explored to date. That's a lot of territory where shit might be going on! "- we havent explored more than that because there is nothing more to explore. After you explore so much, it just starts to be the same. Side: NASA
2
points
A lot of space is going to be the same too. And one is far less expensive than the other. The only real reason I can see for supporting NASA above NOAA is that NASA would hopefully yield an alternative to life on earth since we've so clearly f*cked up the only liveable planet in the solar system. On the other hand, NOAA can offer a lot of information regarding Earth's weather systems and changing environment. I think it's more important to know what's going on at home than away, especially with human activity slowly killing the planet we live on. Side: NOAA
2
points
The NOAA should take precedence over NASA and most especially at this time where we cannot afford to waste a dime on things that don't give much back and that are so distant. Besides that .6% of the Federal budget is way out of line in today's world of overwhelming deficits. Side: NOAA
3
points
3
points
|
While the ocean is cool and all, it's not as cool as space. Plus, anything we may find in the ocean that may serve our needs, is ultimately just another non-renuable resource or species that our meddling with would only cause harm to. So while studying oceans is good from an academic perspective, there is not a ton to be gained from it ultimately. Space on the other hand, and NASA, hold the keys to endless energy, and our continued existance through all of time. Which though perhaps not anytime on the horizon, is inevitably going to be pretty much the most important concern in the history or humans at some point. Side: NASA
3
points
The argument that NOAA deserves the higher budget because its research is more practical and applicable to us earthlings is very appealing to me, however I see three problems with it. 1. NASA's projects are just far, far more expensive and capital intensive than anything NOAA does; and NOAA can live much easier on its smaller diet than NASA ever could. 2. NASA has a much wider scope of interests. While I'm sure NOAA has produced many fantastic things there is really only so much you can study about the ocean and atmosphere until you end up just refining what you already know. NASA on the other hand has a seemingly infinite horizon. In the one area of robotics, for example, NASA is no doubt substantially under budgeted compared to the enormity of potential robotics holds. 3. It may not be true that NOAA actually produces the most practical science. NASA's raison d'etre may be lofty but their innovations are not. From communication satellites to the cochlear implant, a lot of what we take for granted has been inspired by NASA. We see it as an institution that spent billions of our dollars to send man to the moon for the only apparent reason to see if we could. Instead we should see it as a hub of innovation, exploring bottomless topics like physics and cosmology, synthetics and ergonomics. Hell, NOAA depends on NASA. Is NASA, after all, not responsible for much of the hurricane and climate data NOAA lives on? Did NASA not make huge contributions to ending ozone depletion; and are they not doing the brunt of the research on solving and measuring global climate change? The view that NASA is just some mars roving waste-of-resources is utterly false. Side: NASA
2
points
2
points
|
