▲ 1463 ▼ NASA Plus Streaming: "our new ad-free, no cost, family-friendly streaming service unlocks our Emmy award-winning live coverage, embeds you into our missions through new original video series" (www.nasa.gov) submitted 2 years ago by TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] aidan@lemmy.world -27 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think monetarily supporting people would help them more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) We can afford to do both. We choose not to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aidan@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) Probably true to some extent. Though, at what point do you decide it's better to just directly give the money to people? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's no situation where it isn't better to just give the money directly to the people who need it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flerp@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Considering it is such a small percentage of the budget and they have developed so much useful technology (https://www.howtogeek.com/831363/these-nasa-innovations-are-all-around-us-everyday/) I would say, take the money from other things that suck, like handouts to the rich and wasteful military overspending which would easily cover the things we need to cover. Defunding NASA would contribute to the dummification of the country and is a terrible idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Considering it is such a small percentage Currently, but during many of the innovations it was a much higher percentage. And why do you assume there wouldn't be other, maybe more impactful innovations, if NASA money and NASA researchers weren't working on something else? permalink fedilink source parent [–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child) That would be great, but that's not NASA's department. Try Congress first. Then the DOD. Edit: and then the morally bankrupt billionaires. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I'm not advocating NASA donate the money, I'm advocating considering cutting NASA's budget permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) We can afford to do both. We choose not to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aidan@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) Probably true to some extent. Though, at what point do you decide it's better to just directly give the money to people? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's no situation where it isn't better to just give the money directly to the people who need it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flerp@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Considering it is such a small percentage of the budget and they have developed so much useful technology (https://www.howtogeek.com/831363/these-nasa-innovations-are-all-around-us-everyday/) I would say, take the money from other things that suck, like handouts to the rich and wasteful military overspending which would easily cover the things we need to cover. Defunding NASA would contribute to the dummification of the country and is a terrible idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Considering it is such a small percentage Currently, but during many of the innovations it was a much higher percentage. And why do you assume there wouldn't be other, maybe more impactful innovations, if NASA money and NASA researchers weren't working on something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aidan@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) Probably true to some extent. Though, at what point do you decide it's better to just directly give the money to people? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's no situation where it isn't better to just give the money directly to the people who need it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flerp@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Considering it is such a small percentage of the budget and they have developed so much useful technology (https://www.howtogeek.com/831363/these-nasa-innovations-are-all-around-us-everyday/) I would say, take the money from other things that suck, like handouts to the rich and wasteful military overspending which would easily cover the things we need to cover. Defunding NASA would contribute to the dummification of the country and is a terrible idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Considering it is such a small percentage Currently, but during many of the innovations it was a much higher percentage. And why do you assume there wouldn't be other, maybe more impactful innovations, if NASA money and NASA researchers weren't working on something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's no situation where it isn't better to just give the money directly to the people who need it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flerp@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Considering it is such a small percentage of the budget and they have developed so much useful technology (https://www.howtogeek.com/831363/these-nasa-innovations-are-all-around-us-everyday/) I would say, take the money from other things that suck, like handouts to the rich and wasteful military overspending which would easily cover the things we need to cover. Defunding NASA would contribute to the dummification of the country and is a terrible idea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Considering it is such a small percentage Currently, but during many of the innovations it was a much higher percentage. And why do you assume there wouldn't be other, maybe more impactful innovations, if NASA money and NASA researchers weren't working on something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Considering it is such a small percentage Currently, but during many of the innovations it was a much higher percentage. And why do you assume there wouldn't be other, maybe more impactful innovations, if NASA money and NASA researchers weren't working on something else? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child) That would be great, but that's not NASA's department. Try Congress first. Then the DOD. Edit: and then the morally bankrupt billionaires. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I'm not advocating NASA donate the money, I'm advocating considering cutting NASA's budget permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I'm not advocating NASA donate the money, I'm advocating considering cutting NASA's budget permalink fedilink source parent