Now this is a Switch! For four decades we have heard

"If they can send men to the moon then why can't they ".

Now we have

" If they can spend almost a trillion dollars on Wall Street why can't they have a space program and send men to the moon".

It would seem that if you wait long enough everything eventual comes round full circle.

I can see that this will be the new rallying cry from every goverment agency or any group the wants money. Every group that wants money, will simply say, "If we can give wall street and the banks a trillion dollars, why can't we get some?"

For many people, 10 trillion is not enough of a national debt. It is ok to them, if it goes higher, just so long as they get their share.

What is high enough? With the hundreds of billions being thrown around right now, we will blow right past 11 trillion. So whats high enough then? 15 trillion? 20 trillion?

If we don't start staying with in our budget, that is where we will be heading.

Let's work with the current 10 trillion plus that we currently own. If we pay 10% interest per year on that debt, that would be one trillion dollars a year, that we are giving to countries like China and Japan.

Of course, that also means that we (the goverment) will also have one trillion less to work with each year. Can you imagine what NASA and the country could do with an extra trillion dollars every year? That is what we would have, if we weren't in debt.

Instead of saying we want some money too, maybe "everyone" should be saying "that's enough, we don't want to put this burden on our children and grand children."

If I'm too high with the 10% number, it hardly matters, because as the national debt shoots pass 11 trillion and more, even if you based it on 6 or 7%, we will soon be paying out over a trillion dollars a year.

Of course, there is also the posibility, that it is costing us more than 10% a year to service our debt.

It's time for everyone to tighten their belts, not just the little people out there.

Make a business case for NASA? You have got to be kidding me.

When people used to try to do this they would say the space station will cure cancer or NASA invented the entire computer industry.

Now since that did not work, they simply say yes we know NASA is pork but look how much pork these other guys got. At least if NASA got the pork we could "try" to get back to the moon so when others get there the US could be there as well???? I don't get it.

Never mind that my children will be paying for the $700 B. We don't have the $700 B to spend and we don't have the $17 B to spend on NASA either.

Get real!

Putting this here, since I don't know where else to put it.

McCain's saying he'd exempt science funding from his spending freeze and increase spending for NASA.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/science-funding-wont-be-frozen-under-mccain-adviser-says-2008-10-14.html

The only way to make a business case for space or for any business is simple, in a capitalistic economic system the business activity must be profitable. If the economic system is communist or socialist then other criteria's apply. As a scientific research organization, NASA is not in the business of making profits. NASA develops science experiments. The return on the science has been tremendous but its still only science.

For a presence in space that is long term, permanent and profitable; the goal and action of developing the space born infrastructure foundation are needed to support orbital and trans-orbital logistics and operations. The supported actions and projects would include orbital power generation, satellite servicing, lunar mining and propellant production.

These are not NASA goals, never has been since NASA only does science.

Some other government organization or private enterprise is going to have to provide the leadership for the establishment of permanent space infrastructure.

The National Aeronautics and Space Act, Pub. L. No. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426 (Jul. 29, 1958), Sec. 203. states in part:

(a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall--
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.

NASA seems focused on (1), (2), and (3) but also seems to not give a priority to or ignore (4) and (5). Of course NASA priorities are "encouraged" by congress via funding.

So if the function, utilization and profitability of NASA is to be discussed, I recommend starting with the meaning, intent, and application of the National Aeronautics and Space Act.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS

If The National Aeronautics and Space Act is outdated, needs changed, or improperly applied then work to get it changed, we do live in a Democracy after all.

I think NASA is working on numbers 4 and 5 right now with great success, through the COTS program. I can't think of money better spent, dollar for dollar. For very little investment by NASA and with almost no risk. If the company doesn't achieve the requirements, then NASA doesn't pay.

Just look at how far Spacex has gone and with such a small investment of money. With companies like that, we can start to take back the commercial satelite launch market. New companies mean more employment, good skilled employment.
Other companies like Bigelow are also starting to make their mark.

If NASA wants more money, then do away with cost plus contracts. Hold companies to their original bid, not a bid that changes every year. NASA is not in the business of making a profit, but that doesn't mean that they can't look to get taxpayers the most bang for the buck.

"When people used to try to do this they would say the space station will cure cancer or NASA invented the entire computer industry."

I haven't heard the claim that the space station will cure cancer, but the claim that NASA invented the computer industry actually has some validity. In 1962, NASA funded the development of integrated-circuit based computers for the Apollo guidance computer ("against the advice of conservative advisers who warned that ICs may not be reliable," according to the computer history museum). The Air Force picked up this work for the Minuteman-II program (yes, another large government program); and between the two of them, these programs pretty much developed the modern computer. See, for example, http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline/1962-Apollo.html