I mean when kids are dying in Africa should America be spending all that money on the Shuttle. What has it achieved ?The last Shuttle didnt come back,and this one was dubious.

This has already been discussed here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=529145) and here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=477135)

When the Governments in Africa spend their money on weapons and flash cars and private planes for corrupt dictators, I think the US can spend it's money on what it wants.

The space program is proving more and more valuable to the world - satellites assist in agriculture, weather forecasting, communications. Materials from the space program and high tech weapons programmes have proved immensely useful on earth - Teflon, velcro, ceramics, etc. Technologies spun off from the space program include many developments in microelectronics, materials science. Then there's pure research.

And finally there's the fact that we need to look to the heavens with some degree of hope for the future. International collaboration in space makes the world a safer place.

So yes, spend the money and spend more. Get us to Mars. Get a manned, permanent lunar colony. Get the ISS enlarged.
The US is already the largest donor of aid in real dollar terms in teh world. Give them a break.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP

The US is already the largest donor of aid in real dollar terms in teh world. Give them a break.

Joe

Not not in real terms. Just in overall amount. Thats not real though, per capita they are well down the list. I beleive even Poland is above.

There is a campaign to get America to spend 0.7% of GDP on Charity, which is around what England spends. They current give nearly half that amount 0.4%. Also when you consider only 10% of Americans charity giving goes abroad and that ALL countries don't give all they pledge things look much different.

The shuttle is going away, it was a mistake, form over function. NASA have admitted that and are now moving back to rockets. One manned, one for cargo. It will be far cheaper and allow more missions.

Many say that is they gave the same amount as other developed countries per GDP it would (due to the huge GDP) it would end poverty.

the government state quite categrically that for every $1 spent on a successful launch they recoup $13 in spending/finance/income benefits, and has happened successively since the Apollo series.

Space missions are fun for the public and what they are doing is pretty incredible.
NASA developments in clothing, food, energy, electronics, health, etc have all been very important and well appreciated by their repective communities.

Also, seeing shuttle take-offs, landings and space walks with such impressive media coverage will inspire a new generation of scientists.

I'm all for pumping money into cutting-edge science.

I'd be interested to see some *real* figures though.

So NASA just spent £2 billion on this mission.
How much money does the world community give to Africa? How much should it need if spent properly for things to start improving?

Nasa budget of $18 billion per annum is not much more than the margin of error on the accounts of UK PLC.

i.e Small Change for a Global Effort.


We will need to get off this planet one day, let's make sure we know how to well in advance.

I get a little tired of America being blamed for every ill in the world. As someione else has noted here, it is the dictators of these countries who are watching their children starve, not us.
Individual Americans quite apart from the Government contribute millions in private charities because we are not unfeeling, and believe by doing it this way we can do a better job of distriburion than the authoirties.
Remember America was not part of the colonial empire system that left these countries in such incapable hands, Those
countries were European.

Originally posted by back2basics
Not not in real terms. Just in overall amount. Thats not real though, per capita they are well down the list. I beleive even Poland is above.

There is a campaign to get America to spend 0.7% of GDP on Charity, which is around what England spends. They current give nearly half that amount 0.4%. Also when you consider only 10% of Americans charity giving goes abroad and that ALL countries don't give all they pledge things look much different.

The shuttle is going away, it was a mistake, form over function. NASA have admitted that and are now moving back to rockets. One manned, one for cargo. It will be far cheaper and allow more missions.

Many say that is they gave the same amount as other developed countries per GDP it would (due to the huge GDP) it would end poverty.

I'm sorry - I'm misisng something here.

The US gives more money than anyone else - that's 'real' as far as I can see. They may have more people but they're still giving more money?

What is the problem here?

A dollar is a dollar, be it per capita, per percentage of GDP, whatever.

What I am interested in is the statistics of only 10% of US funds given going overseas? Can you point me at them - I'm genuinely interested here.

Joe