NASA spent billions of dollors on space, why don't they utilize it on poor countries for their betterness?

Why don't you spend all the money you spent on designer clothes and junk food and spent it on poor people?..Different people have their needs and the guys down at nasa have an urge to explore space..

NASA's billions are spent advancing science and technology that directly helps the world. Indirectly, NASA's space race with the Russians spurred the wave of Engineers and scientist that pushed America to the technological and scientific crown. Even today, how many kids are dreaming to become an astronaut or scientist or engineer because of what NASA is doing.

Finacially speaking, NASA's billions are a drop in the bucket that is the US budget as many has already illustrated. Science is never a waste of money.

Poor countries are not poor because they lack wealth; they are poor because they have such political instability that the basic infrastructure is not there and investments in the production of food, consumer goods, and services cannot take place. The problem is the people themselves; they are too corrupt, and too uncivilized, to organize themselves into a productive and self sustaining society. Throwing money at the problem will only fund the local warloard's next military campaign, and result in even more starvation and mass butchery.

Case in point: compare Haiti with the Dominican Republic; both share the island of Hispanola, both have the same natural resources, yet the Hatian side of the island is blighted, while the dominican side is in much better shape. You can actually see the border while flying over the place, the Hatian side looks barren even from 30,000 feet.

So you think if we canceled NASA's budget, it would all go to helping poor countries? Or do you think maybe instead it would go towards the war? I bet that's it.

NASA has the smallest budget of any government agency, less than 30 billion a year. We've spent more than 2 trillion (2,000 billion) on the war so far. And we can't say that's really helping anyone, whereas NASA stimulates our economy, funds scientists, students, and teachers, and generates thousands of jobs.

If the government wanted to help poor countries, there are hundreds of budgets they could cut first. Or just add more to the national debt. But notice how it's not happening. Getting rid of NASA won't change that.

Because that's not their job?

NASA got $17 billion this year. The US miltary got over $400 billion. NASA's expenditure may be highly visible, but it's really not that high.

In addition, NASA *has* improved things for poorer countries by providing better weather information, global imaging, GPS, and all sorts of other things that have helped rescue and aid workers get to where they are needed, or predict disasters so action can be taken beforehand to reduce the impact of such things.

Well, why don't we let somebody who worked for NASA explain this: In response to a letter by a nun who worked among the starving children of Kabwe, Zambie, Africa, this reply was given why the money is not better spent for helping starving people directly.

(Edit: Follow the link, the text is too long to be posted here :( )

Excerpt:

"Before trying to describe in more detail how our space program is contributing to the solution of our earthly problems, I would like to relate briefly a supposedly true story, which may help support the argument. About 400 years ago, there lived a count in a small town in Germany. He was one of the benign counts, and he gave a large part of his income to the poor in his town. This was much appreciated, because poverty was abundant during medieval times, and there were epidemics of the plague which ravaged the country frequently. One day, the count met a strange man. He had a workbench and little laboratory in his house, and he labored hard during the daytime so that he could afford a few hours every evening to work in his laboratory. He ground small lenses from pieces of glass; he mounted the lenses in tubes, and he used these gadgets to look at very small objects. The count was particularly fascinated by the tiny creatures that could be observed with the strong magnification, and which he had never seen before. He invited the man to move with his laboratory to the castle, to become a member of the count's household, and to devote henceforth all his time to the development and perfection of his optical gadgets as a special employee of the count.

The townspeople, however, became angry when they realized that the count was wasting his money, as they thought, on a stunt without purpose. "We are suffering from this plague" they said, "while he is paying that man for a useless hobby!" But the count remained firm. "I give you as much as I can afford," he said, "but I will also support this man and his work, because I know that someday something will come out of it!"

Indeed, something very good came out of this work, and also out of similar work done by others at other places: the microscope. It is well known that the microscope has contributed more than any other invention to the progress of medicine, and that the elimination of the plague and many other contagious diseases from most parts of the world is largely a result of studies which the microscope made possible.

The count, by retaining some of his spending money for research and discovery, contributed far more to the relief of human suffering than he could have contributed by giving all he could possibly spare to his plague-ridden community."

I agree. Who desires microwave ovens or velcro or any of the different innovations or creations that have take place using fact of area exploration. yet permit's not end with NASA. what proportion TRILLIONS of dollars are spent on expert activities, the Olympics, and the United countries that would desire to be greater suitable spent on unfavorable international places? If all of those people who commute to the Olympics and positioned money into souvenirs, tickets, and hotels purely gave that money to unfavorable international places...nicely, that they had nonetheless probably be unfavorable international places. we've poured Billions of dollars into corrupt governments and risky areas and have accomplished not something yet make some grasping human beings prosperous: Palestine, Haiti, and Saddam's Iraq come as we talk to ideas. money in and of itself isn't a treatment-prepared on poverty. we've spent over $40 TRILLION interior the U.S. on my own on welfare using fact the 1960's. And we nonetheless have poverty right here (different than you under no circumstances hear approximately it while there's a Democratic president for some reason...), and we are the richest united states on the earth. How will throwing money at different international places help them? won't that in basic terms bring about a financial 'quagmire' that we are caught in?

Because taking care of poor countries is not NASA's job.

Taking care of poor countries is the job of the poor countries.

The United States was built entirely without any foriegn aid...think about that. People didn't start giving out aid to other countires till well after the USA was world power.

Becoming a first class nation is something that each nation has to do for itself. Nobody can do it for you.

NASA is a space agency. So, it spends dollars on space! thats simple. It is financed by the US Govt. itself. So, how can it finance other countrie and solve out their financial works? NASA has done its level best to exel in its own field and has succeeded indeed. As far as global unity is concerned, The ISS or the International Space Station represents the earthlings out there in space and it was launched by NASA as well.

1. NASA's purpose is to explore space, not run an international charity.

2. Most countries that are third world are that way because their culture/government is stupid, not because they need money.

3. Like the microscope anecdote says, one scientific discovery can be equivelent to millions of simple acts.

4. If you are so good with money, tell the next president that you want to be his secretary of the treasury and see what he says.