Is NASA necessary?<\/p>\n
…before you answer that, remember, Star Trek isn’t real, and clearly the government already knows where Uranus is.<\/p>\n
Is there a cure for cancer or world hunger in space? Should we risk bumping into someone out there, and pissing them off? Do we need to spend Billions on a space station that will eventually burn up in our atmosphere some day?<\/p>\n
…you know, like a Dodge pickup?<\/p>\n
NASA invented Tang<\/a> – shouldn’t they have quit at the top of their game? (shut up, Brett)<\/p>\n The space program \u201cis perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources,\u201d the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee said in a summary of its report.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n …Geez, must be run by a bunch of liberals or something. God forbid we lower our goals during an almost unprecedented (as of yet at least) economic crisis.<\/p>\n In a time when our government (and it’s people by the way) should be looking to do more with less, to work harder, save and sacrifice more, to work our way out of the hole we’ve collectively dug, Obama’s next proposal is out of this world.<\/p>\n Obama asked Congress<\/a> in February to boost NASA\u2019s budget by 5 percent in fiscal year 2010 to $18.7 billion and embraced Bush\u2019s 2020 moon-return goal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Barack Obama shares Bush’s goal to go where the sun doesn’t shine. You can pay a lot of mortgage payments with nineteen billion, Mr. Jimmy!<\/p>\n The increase excludes $1 billion the agency will get under economic-stimulus legislation. A 10- year projection released with Obama\u2019s budget showed spending would remain flat for NASA in later years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n