Why doesn't the government invest more money into NASA?

I think we should invest more money in scientific research across the board. The reason we don't fund research more than we do now is because most voters are scientifically illiterate. They can't see the value in investing in NASA.

The counterargument against funding NASA would be 1) NASA specializes in aerospace engineering so it can't help across the board, 2) Private enterprises can innovate better than gov't agencies, so reduce gov't spending and let private industry do the investing.

If you actually look at the amount of money spent on space exploration as a % of world GDP it is an incredibly small amount. The amount spent world wide on militarty equipment to kill each other with is probably 10,000 times greater. But do not forget that international communications including a great deal of internet traffic, is only possible because of space exploration, which has resulted in satelites which assist not only with communications but also weather forcasts etc. Without them we probably would find it difficult to measure global warming. Then there are all the materials that we now think of as common place but were originally developed for space exploration. The point is we learn important knowledge by probing the unknown. If we only think about what we already know, we can't discover new knowledge or new ideas. So advances in medical science are not isolated from those of physics or chemistry. Space exploration adds to the total human knowledge and understanding of who we are, where we are ,where we came from and how nature works. If non of that is of interest to you, then perhaps you should throw out your computer, cell phone, digital anything etc and live a nice primitive lifestyle. There is a vitalness about doing uninhibited free range research, not constrained by immediate or near term gains. Because who can tell where the next big idea is going to come from. No one foresaw that the development of cryogenic super conductors would eventually result in very effective medical imaging tools such as MRI scanners. The whole biotechnology programme, which offers the best hope of curing deseases like HIV & AIDS is founded on some long term impressive pure research. Space exploration is just another research area which has already more than paid its way in spin off benifits. It has untold potential in the long term, but if we don't start, we will not see the benifits. Currently it is space exploration which has the potential to find some real answers to global warming for instance. We can observe how other planets climate systems operate and so come to a better understanding of our planets climate. We can learn more about the little patch of our cosmos and so understand the likelyhood of sizeable asteroid collisions, a lot more probable than thought just a few years ago for instance. We understand very little of the way our solar system works and space exploration is a very big eye opener. We have learnt more in the last 50 yrs than in the previous 5000. Our grasp on reality has thus improved. Nothinng like a pic of earth from space for instance to remind you that we live on a tiny fragile ball far from any where else, so we better look after it. Cut so called defense spending world wide by 20% and we could double research in space and do all of what you wanted as well and have money left over, if everyone co-operated that is.

The counter argument against investing more into NASA is that its character has changed dramatically.

The innovations you cite are old enough that most people have no idea where they came from. Back then, NASA did little except design mission parameters then wave money at PRIVATE COMPANIES to find ways to fulfill them.

Now, NASA does just about everything in-house which is why they quite literally CANNOT replicate what "they did" 4 decades ago.

I would rather develop something useful like next generation aircraft, ships, tanks, mass transit, even alternative energy related. NASA takes credit for a lot of inventions that companies created while working for NASA. NASA itself did not make the discoveries. It just means that pushing the scientific envelope with a huge budget creates unintended discoveries.

Because all of these "shortages" have been artificially created by the government. There is plenty of energy and room to grow more food. The jobs issue would be temporary if the government doesn't interfere too much. I am not opposed to NASA funding but I don't favor it for phony reactionary reasons..

To put it bluntly, the American masses dont think in the long term. They will complain to local politicians, to vote against it, and of course the politician will to get re-elected. If it doesnt help us now why should we do it. Nasa is a great source of innovation and we should put alot of money into their projects. Theres alot to be done in America, and im not talking short term solutions (social security, health care, and others that have and will flop),

NASA is a government agency. That's reason enough not to trust it with money.

Personal computers were truly developed and perfected by people in the private sector.

The moon is not a resource-rich place. Not even for cheese.

Plastic consumes oil and takes forever to biodegrade.

Thanks, NASA.

We already invest a lot into NASA. Once we get this unemployment thing fixed then we can start to invest in NASA,

Republican presidents consistently increase NASA funding. Democrats consistently cut NASA funding. Democrats don't support real science. They practically killed nuclear power in this country. However, Democrats would be more than happy to spend millions on research into the prevalence of homosexuality among orangutans. Without NASA, we wouldn't have communication satellites in orbit. We wouldn't have GPS. However, thanks to Democrats, we now know how many gay orangutans frolic in the wild.

I gave up on NASA after the hissy they threw when a paying tourist wanted to visit the Space Station.