Why does America spend so much money on NASA when there are other higher priorities that we should accomplish?

Question

I wonder why the U.S. government spends so much money on NASA space exploration. For example, this last Phoenix Mars mission cost $520 million. I see the benefits that space exploration gives us, I just strongly believe that research like this is more of a luxury and should come second after problems such as natural disasters, disease, economic problems, education, etc. I don't get why so much cash and the brightest minds we have are going towards something that has yet to contribute any benefits aside from knowledge, mapping, etc. No cure for a disease or other significant benefit has been found out there yet, why not put those minds and dollars to use to cure some of the actual current problems such as our economy. Or more government funding for college which in turn results in more higher educated citizens which results in more future researchers. I do see the benenfit, I just think fixing current problems is priority, and when we have extra money then do that stuff.

Answer 1

I completely agree with you, and I see no answers yet, so the only way for me to see if anyone else has written anything about this is to submit this and see.  No Kidding!  Why? What is this Space Exploration Accomplishing?  What benefit has it brought to mankind.  It hasn't put food on the tables of poor people in other countries, or our poor.  What has it accomplished.  Anyone with the answer?  How about an answer from someone who works at Nasa?  The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

Answer 2

First of all, NASA's budget is minuscule compared to other government agencies/departments.  If you want to question the size of the operating budget of NASA, in 2009 the US budget is split as follows:

Health & Human Services: $68.5B (3.9 x NASA's budget)

Department of Energy: $25.0B (1.4 x NASA's budget)

Department of Education: $59.2B (3.4 x NASA's budget)

Department of Transportation: $63.4B (3.6 x NASA's budget)

Department of Housing & Urban Development: $38.5B (2.2 x NASA's budget)

Department of Defense: $515.4B (29.3 x NASA's budget)

Global War on Terrorism: $189.3B (10.8 x NASA's budget)

National Debt Payment: $10.2T (580 x NASA's budget)

Second, NASA's mission is not just limited to planetary exploration and human space flight.  In that $17.6B, funding for Earth science, aeronautics research (both flight and flight safety), materials research, software tools development (the de facto standard software package for structural analysis was developed under a NASA contract), and the list goes on.

The current problems will not be cured by taking NASA's budget and redistributing it to other agencies.  It's just not that much to make a significant impact.  Plus, a significant amount  of NASA's budget goes into the private sector in the form of contracts.  The remainder, employee salaries, is used to groceries, cars, houses, etc.  All of which are a positive influence on the US economy.

Like I said in my original post, all of NASA's budget isn't just for manned space flight.  Earth sensing missions help in the development of better weather models, materials research supporting technology development projects definitely spins off into the private sector, NASA's budget boosts the US economy through contracts with private industry, and the demand for engineers and scientists within NASA puts a large demand on the US educational system.  NASA's budget won't fix existing problems and if done away with, the problems would compound.

Answer 3

Why are we spending 500 billion in Iraq? Somebody's making money off it, whether it's the heads of the Phoenix mission in NASA or the executives of Haliburton making money off their weapon sales. And the people making money are also in power, and looking to defend their own interests.

Answer 4

$520 million is NOTHING in terms of percentage of total spending. I don't see what you're worried about. I think space exploration is important, because for one, if Earth goes to h**l, we may be able to find another place to go. Also, when you talk about diseases and natural disaster management, $520 million wouldn't make that much of a difference when it comes to aid. Are you aware how much just one decent electron microscope (often used in research) costs? -- anywhere from $250 million, to $100 million.

This "extra money" is really not that much, in terms of spending as a whole.

Answer 5

Two thumbs up (if I could) to Scott H.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

There's a persistent notion that redirecting government money is going to solve the nation's ills.  It's been shown that government agencies throwing money at problems actually makes the problems worse not better, meanwhile it bloats bureaucracy.

And - funding the arts, funding medical research, and funding exploration are endeavors that I'm very proud to say the US government does.  The human spirit needs much more than just bread and water.