@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 9yrs agoActive 16hrs ago

Should the government fund space travel?

In 2022 Congress’ increased NASA’s annual budget by 3% to about $24 billion, short of the 7% increase the Biden administration sought. The budget includes $1.5 billion in funds for the moon-lander program which would, for the first time in decades, take astronauts back to the lunar surface.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Suffolk (New York)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 44k Suffolk voters.

71%
Yes
29%
No
69%
Yes
17%
No
3%
Yes, and drastically increase NASA’s current budget
5%
No, not until we drastically decrease our federal deficit
4%
No, we should focus on saving the Earth instead of leaving it
3%
No, the government should leave human space travel to private companies
1%
No, and NASA’s budget should only be for military missions
0%
No, the government should not fund any space exploration missions

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 44k Suffolk voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 44k Suffolk voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Suffolk voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8M3N9NW from Nebraska  answered…4yrs4Y

yes, but we should focus more on saving the earth than space

 @4Z5RZ4Pfrom Vermont  answered…4yrs4Y

I believe as a planet, humanity should come together to work on a very big and potentially expansive project, one not meant for colonization, but more so for exploration.
I believe a station should be built (looking much like the death star) that contains multiple habitats, buildings, etc. to house the human race and all known life forms on earth in its genetic and physical make-up, and we should go out, explore the many different planets to discover other intelligent life to learn what we can from them, to expand our own intelligence and understanding of the universe.

 @96259PT from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

No, because we should focus on saving the Earth instead of leaving it and also NASA has also admitted that it's space programs and travels have been a falsification for years.

 @8CVTXN4 from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

NASA should support private business like SpaceX

 @9D6CQ8N from Nevada  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, for now. Understanding the effects being in space has on humans is important and we should collectively pursue learning more about it. But we should be moving toward a model that allows private entities making space efforts more commercially viable.

 @9D5XBHH from Georgia  answered…1yr1Y

No, because we should focus on saving the Earth instead of leaving it and NASA's space programs and travels have been a falsification for years.

 @8W5BC6K from California  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and let private companies be free to do the same.

 @9BTY39B from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

No, we should focus on saving the Earth instead of leaving it and NASA has also admitted that it's space programs and travels have been a falsification for years.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Space Exploration” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

NASA’s $100 Billion Moon Mission Is Going Nowhere

There are government boondoggles, and then there’s NASA’s Artemis program.More than a half century after Neil Armstrong’s giant leap for mankind, Artemis was intended to land astronauts back on the moon. It has so far spent nearly $100 billion without anyone getting off the ground, yet its complexity and outrageous waste are still spiraling upward. The next US president should rethink the program in its entirety.As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.The problems start with the mission, which is more political than scientific. There is little humans can do on the moon that robots cannot. Technology has come a long way since 1969, to put it mildly. We do not need another person on the moon to collect rocks or take scientific measurements. And the costs of putting people on the moon — and of planning for their potential rescue, should complications arise — are truly astronomical.To understand the level of wasteful spending, forget the $1 billion in spacesuits that have yet to be delivered. That’s pocket change compared to the rocket, called the Space Launch System. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s inspector general estimates the program has so far burned through $23.8 billion. Each launch will likely cost at least $4 billion, quadruple initial estimates. This exceeds private-sector costs many times over, yet it can launch only about once every two years and — unlike SpaceX’s rockets — can’t be reused.Even if the Space Launch System is completed, there’s a hitch: It isn’t even powerful enough to actually get anyone to the moon, at least not in its current configuration. It will instead deposit its capsule, called Orion, into what’s called near-rectilinear halo orbit. Here, the capsule — which, despite $20 billion being poured into it, currently has a faulty heat shield — must rendezvous with a landing spacecraft, which will then take the astronauts to the lunar surface. And getting the landing spacecraft into orbit, before it can be propelled toward the moon to meet Orion, is itself a complex process.

▲  27 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies