What rational arguments are there to support NASA?

Sure, there are plenty of rational arguments. Here is just one.

Putting stuff into space and keeping it working is hard. That means that you have to develop new materials (and sometimes find new ways of using old ones), and those materials get "spun off" into things that help everybody. Sometimes it's not flashy, and there may be some years between the development and the private sector use, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And it's not like "playing the lotto"--this stuff is real, and you've used some of the spin-offs today without even knowing it.

The simple fact that you're using a computer with the capabilities it does is one of the spin offs. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be computers, but they're faster, more capable, and use less electricity because of advances from the space program. (If you'd like to see about where computers would be today without those advances, take a look at the specs from a computer from about 1995).

Do you know how common flat tires used to be 40 years or so ago? Tires are a lot less likely to get a puncture (and when they do, a lot more likely to go flat relatively slowly than to suddenly go "pop") because of materials developed for space travel.

If you've ever used one of those mylar "emergency blankets" while camping (or, God forbid, after a natural disaster), those came from looking for an insulation for the lunar module that was both light enough, and good enough to be used on the flights to the moon. That's a prime example of "repurposing" an existing material. Before that, aluminized mylar had basically one use--as Christmas tree tinsel.

The next "big thing" in computers will probably be something called "quantum computing". It's going to be the equivalent of going from the vacuum tubes computers used in the '50's to the integrated circuits we use today. It involves some of the basic building blocks of matter, and understanding how those work is greatly enhanced by understanding the early universe. Stuff we learn from things like Hubble are what are going to make the next generation of computers faster and smaller than anything we can do today.

"They care about their money and the fact that it's being spent to satisfy some nerd's curiosity". And every time they get in a car or an airplane, they spend less money getting where they're going because planes and cars are much more efficent because of aerospace advances. If they didn't have to spend the tax money (less than 1% of a person's annual income tax), but had to buy twice as much gas to get where they were going, I'm betting most people would care.

See http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/database for all the dozens upon dozens of technologies that were originally developed for NASA projects that are now in use in other industries.

And besides the technologies developed to support the space program, basic science research still has value of its own.

You don't seem to understand the importance of basic science research. If a particular avenue of scientific research has a direct value (applied research) then it should be paid for by the companies that stand to profit from it. Public funding should be used for the basic science research that's necessary to get to the level of applied research but may not lead to a direct or quick profit. A lot of things that were just a curiosity when they were first developed are now a major part of modern technology.

Things aren't just invented out of nothing. Almost all technology is based on prior research. The prior research may have simply been done to advance science with no clear applications at the time. It might take someone another 20 or 120 years to figure out an application for it. Do you think the first people to study microwaves thought: "Hey, maybe we can cook food with this" or the people who developed the first atomic clock thought to launch them into space to make the GPS system?

Um. Doesn't blue skies research have major economic spin-offs? Doesn't it bolster the technology base of your entire society? It's not "playing the lotto." It pays off reliably and constantly, and with a pittance for an investment.

>> At what point will the people in charge say "You know what... just because you're curious about something doesn't mean we should sink billions of tax dollars into it."

If you present them with one of your ideas like...

>> I'm curious what will happen if an Abrams tank is dropped from 5 miles up. How big a crater will it produce?

Since it's a false analogy.

You seem to be under the incorrect impression that NASA has some humongous budget. NASA's yearly budget equals about $17 billion. That's only 0.6% of the federal yearly budget. Not 6%, 0.6%, and it's their ENTIRE budget. Including the money spent to pay employees. Speaking of which...every single dollar spent on NASA gets pumped right back into the economy. Unlike most government programs which just piss money away. Obama spent more money on the various wasted bailouts than has been spent on NASA since the day it was founded, including the Moon missions.... And you MIGHT be correct that the "average" tax payer may not care about some of the things NASA researches. But should we just cancel all research because the "average" American tax payer is an idiot and cares more about who the next "top model" is than about important things? Or should we cancel all research just because YOU don't care about it, and you THINK that the average tax payer doesn't either? You also seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what NASA actually does. GPS for instance. NASA has nothing to do with GPS. That's a U.S. military program designed to help the military find their way around on the battlefield. It just, like many NASA programs, has many uses other than what it was intended for. Similar to Hubble. You do know that NASA didn't fund Hubble all by itself right? The European Space Agency was in on it as well. And since it has been up there for over 20 years we've spent something like a little over $1 million a year on it.... Most federal agencies couldn't even manage to turn on the lights for $1 million a year. NASA does quite a bit more than just space stuff as well. National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration remember? If you've ever flown in an airplane the chances are good that the wing was designed by NASA. If you ever turned on that little overhead vent in an airliner that air is being routed to you by a NACA duct, designed by NASA when it was known by its earlier name. The real question is are there any RATIONAL arguments against NASA? You haven't made any.

You mean th military, period. The GOP historically has cut NASA's budget at every opportunity. Star Wars was not a NASA program. Examples: the GOP >reduced spending for the Space Shuttle in the 1980s. >cut the Venture Star and DCX programs to build an advanced replacement for the Shuttle in the 1990ss >cut spending for the ISS (the original design called for a 7 man space station, not a crew of 3) >cut funding to deploy an emergency "lifeboat" for the space station (the lifeboat spacecraft is siting in a hanger gathering dust) >>refused to adopt a NASA proposal for a second generation shuttle following the Columbia disaster in 2003 >refused to authorize funding for Bush's so-called "replacement" for the shuttle, his proposed return to the moon program, inadequate as they were >opposed funding to support development of commercial space travel. Newt's ridiculous moon colony isn't real -- it is just talk to win votes. Assuming he actually did win, his "moon base" promises would be worth about as much as his marriage vows.

Did you know that most of the money NASA spends in a year is on aeronautics, not space exploration, they help make flying safer, and more fuel efficient. So, go rant somewhere else!

And we are waiting for private industries to make space vehicles, and waiting, and waiting, and now we must pay the russians to get astronauts to the ISS. Is that a good place to spend our money?

Your question is flawed.

The space program is not to satisfy intellectual curiosity.

It has the practical purpose of discovering what lies outside this planet.

That's useful for several reasons.

1) there may be useful resources there.

2) there may be harmful things there that can threaten our world.

3) we may find places that people can live there.

All the chess tactics have already been found, so there is no point spending money on that.

Hey,

get Tasty Planet Back for Seconds for free here: http://bitly.com/1m5XAhl

no surveys, no scams, just the full game!

You assume the role of a little gray blob, that can assuredly consume anything smaller than its body diameter.

The drive to go into space have led to (among other things)

- Space blankets used in operating theaters and camping all over the world

- T.V. Dinners.

- Powdered Juice drinks. (Think Tang....)

- Heck, NESCAFE or any other dehydrated product.

- Oxygen scrubbers used on ships and diving gear.

- High frequency communications (like cell phones and satellite TV)

- Kidney dialysis machines.

- CAT scan to check astronauts out now routinely save lives.

- Those Brita Water Filters and thier cousins. Recycled water tasted bad apparently.

- Heck even cordless power tools. (No electrical plugs in space)

The point is we can't put a price on innovation. It is by being forced to meet new challenges, or finding better ways to do things that translate into new and unforseen things that benifit man in ways never forseen.

The price of NASA is the price of innovation. It is the price of swinging for the fences instead of plodding along step by dreary step. The cost of loosing access to space is the cost paid by every civilization that closed itself off. They atrophy and if not die, they never again rise to greatness.

And I for one, am not ready to let my civilization go down that road.

"...For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget. ..."

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

The web page IS FIVE YEARS OLD.

This was NOT a question. It's A WHINING RANT. HUGE waste of bandwidth - SPAM.