this post was submitted on
377 points (79% like it)
506 up votes 129 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

376
377

You can donate to NASA. Checks can be sent to NASA, Director of Financial Management, Code BF, Washington, D.C., 20546. (self.space)

submitted ago by spammeaccount

You can not earmark the money for a specific program. If you do the law requires they return the money.

Checks can be sent to NASA, Director of Financial Management, Code BF, Washington, D.C., 20546.

all 76 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]DiaperParty 39 points40 points ago*

Don't my taxes donate to NASA? I am not letting the government cut funding on one of their programs, and then sending them my own money to make up for it.

[–]graestan 16 points17 points ago

No one "let" the government cut the funding. We elect a bunch of jerks who don't care whatsoever what we want. NASA is something we took for granted, never considering that they could just get cut off.

[–]Disasstah -4 points-3 points ago

I don't remember electing an asshole to cut the funding to this.

[–]danglestrong 4 points5 points ago

In other threads people suggest making an App to monitor how representatives vote on recent bills. Why doesn't this already exist?

[–]mocheeze 3 points4 points ago

There's a good one called 'Congress' for Android.

[–]danglestrong 0 points1 point ago

Thanks.

[–]darkesth0ur 4 points5 points ago

Finally someone with a brain.

[–]Lars0 76 points77 points ago

Interesting to know, but I wouldn't suggest anyone would do it.

NASA is an enormous, government run bureaucracy, and is not very efficent. I think it would better to donate money to an educational space-group, such as SEDS (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space), Who do lots of cool space-projects all of the world like making small satellites, doing zero-gravity experiments, small rockets and balloon payloads.

http://seds.org/involvement/endowment/

[–]ryankrameretc 32 points33 points ago

Or The Planetary Society

[–]Flarelocke 17 points18 points ago

Or Space Studies Institute, which came back from the dead a couple of years ago.

[–]nepidae 9 points10 points ago

I kinda of agree with you, the bureaucracy is stifling, and I know it discourages new people from joining nasa. However nasa still does really cool research. I think there is absolutely a place in america to have research that doesn't have immediate monetary value. Nasa does a lot of this type of research.

I am really glad that finally there are startups that are now able to push into space, but this is stuff that with government size funding was able to do 50 years ago.

I 100% agree that funding student type programs such as internships or private things like SEDS (I don't know anything about it, but I'm going to look into it) is key. Not because I think it will discover something amazing, but it seems like a really good way to get kids really interested in science/engineering.

I did an internship with nasa and the people I worked with were amazing, but they were all old. And I had no desire to pursue a career there (even if they had the money to hire.)

[–]Lars0 1 point2 points ago

Yes, I feel the same way after my internships. I feel like working for NASA is more of a back-up plan. :(

[–]aggieastronaut 4 points5 points ago

SEDS! Whoop!

[–]fuelvolts 2 points3 points ago

You know how I know you're an Aggie?

[–]aggieastronaut 1 point2 points ago

My username?

[–]Jalh 1 point2 points ago

This. Also NASA seems to be a really innovator for the civil and military industry and it doesn't get that much love ( money). Government needs to change it's priorities.

[–]ImZeke -1 points0 points ago

NASA is an enormous, government run bureaucracy, and is not very efficent.

This is colossally wrong. The vast majorities of the 'failings' of NASA come from being forced to comply with the arcane, twisted, and ancient Codex Congressia, aka the laws passed by congress that will sometimes specify things like "The boosters should be painted a flammable orange paint." (Not actually true, but about the caliber of specificity that exists in some laws).

[–]Lars0 0 points1 point ago

Have you ever worked at NASA? I have been at three centers and have seen some of this first-hand.

I agree that congress is stifling and makes me really angry sometimes, but part of the blame goes to NASA itself.

[–]FermiAnyon 19 points20 points ago*

Okay. Just for the record, this is steaming pile of Horse Shit! Listen. I loves me some NASA. But it's stupid bullshit to think it's okay to cut them a check. This shit should be properly funded by taxes. And this is no isolated incident. Look at the axe that got dropped on Public Radio! They were already heavily listener funded. It's not okay for the federal government to cut funding for programs that enrich public life! And for what? So they can build another bomb or open another prison!?

Sorry for the rant, but in the wake of the Planned Parenthood thing as well... proposing that we let this sit and privately fund an institution that should be publicly funded is ... frustrating. It just makes it feel like those anti-intellectual, anti-choice types who say things like "I don't want my tax dollards paying for jor abortion!" are unfairly getting their way when I hear about all these things getting cuts in funding.

Edit: I do support my local public radio station. I'm a little concerned that my donations won't go as far with NASA...

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

Your choices are talking to your rep, voting or giving money. Why would you immediately discount one of those options?

Giving money directly to nasa shows the government that you are interested in what they are doing. Saying that it shouldn't be needed is actually horse shit. In a perfect world I shouldn't have to do a lot of things that I actually need to do, but instead of complaining (or maybe along with it) I actually do those things.

[–]FermiAnyon 0 points1 point ago

I do vote. I do talk to my rep. I do give money, like I said. And I complain to people on reddit. I realize you have to prioritize when money is tight... but I'd rather have NASA, health care and decent public education than two rounds of trillion dollar tax cuts that my kids and I are going to spend decades paying for. On top of that, we could probably cut our military budget in half and still be completely unassailable militarily. But hey, I'm just saying...

Edit: I realize we're giving it the old college try with the health care thing... I'm just a little surprised that people didn't look around and say "we can pick and choose from other nations' systems and we're all going to come out on top" because the democrats get to insure everyone and the republicans get to cut overall costs in half. That's really the only logical outcome I can see. Instead, we fight against it for some reason.

[–]routari 0 points1 point ago

I'm not from America.

I love NASA (despite the problems) I'd love to donate if I knew it was going right where it was needed to push the frontier.

I think you guys are taxed half a cent on a dollar for NASA?

[–]FermiAnyon 1 point2 points ago

Exactly. It should be more like a cent or something. Those tax cuts I was talking about average more than the budget of NASA every year they're in place.

[–]feeblemuffin 8 points9 points ago

we shouldn't have to do this.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

Either you take responsibility when its possible, or you don't. Money (and communicating with your representatives) talks way more than votes. Letting the government simply do what it wants basically creates a bubble of self affirming feedback for them.

That said, it is not a simple matter to create any sort of influence on washington. Most voters have jobs other than politics, so unless you are wealthly you are already probaly exhausted from making your own living to also be constantly up to speed with everything you can do to show the government what is in your interest.

[–]jmdugan 3 points4 points ago

Can i count it as a tax contribution?

[–]NoWeCant 5 points6 points ago

Exactly. I don't care to "donate" extra money to the government. Call me when I can designate my income tax payments to specific government organizations.

[–]davvblack 9 points10 points ago

Do you really think a system like that would result in usable roads or safe drinking water?

[–]mexicodoug 2 points3 points ago

In a democracy, yes.

Under the present policy-making (economic/political) system, no.

[–]NoWeCant 4 points5 points ago

The road system is largely paid for by taxes on fuel and vehicle registration, and water utilities are paid by billing customers, not by taxes.

[–]J_F_Sebastian 1 point2 points ago

Why not? Sure, the first year they did it there would be horrible inbalance, but then people would be stuck with shit roads and water for a year. Next year, people will be a lot more careful in giving to the essentials. Eventually a good equilibrium will be found. Stuff people really want/need will get the money it needs, the only stuff that will be left wanting is stuff people really feel they can do without.

[–]HostisHumaniGeneris 6 points7 points ago

Thinking like this is what leads to communities with large retiree populations having underfunded school systems. "I don't need schools, I'm 85 years old. I don't want to pay extra property taxes to support other people's children."

Also, tyranny of the majority, etc etc.

[–]redavni 2 points3 points ago

That is pure fantasy. The water systems that provide clean water support so many industries big and small that any failure to maintain them would precipitate a financial and social crisis that would dwarf any damage even Wall Street could do. In such a scenario, clean water would become the number one election issue everywhere. That is if, in the ensuing social chaos democracy still existed. More likely is that local industry and citizens would recognize this and do whatever necessary to keep the water flowing. Eventually they would come up with a system that spreads out the costs of maintaining and growing water infrastructure to everyone that uses it. Probably a mandatory tax that bypasses the idiots who think government funded koala petting zoos are really important.

Our water infrastructure just like roads were not built in a year, nor even a couple of years. They have taken generations in build.

[–]Bhima 0 points1 point ago

The way people are responding to you is like the existing method of allocating tax dollars had not created a largely invisible 2.2 Trillion dollar gap in Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair.

Your proposal is flawed to be sure... But no more so than the existing system.

[–]HostisHumaniGeneris 1 point2 points ago

No... I really would say his proposal is more flawed than the existing system.

Even as an informed citizen there's no way for me to be fully aware of every worthy program that my tax dollars could be allocated for. Am I expected to divvy out my tax revenue down to the fraction of a penny? Because that's what the current system is capable of doing on a large scale.

Besides that point, there are probably plenty of worthwhile programs that do not benefit me directly but do benefit the nation as a whole. Education? Urban redevelopment? Environmental Protection? What about spending money on projects that won't have any impact until a decade or an entire lifetime has passed? Is the general public really capable of that level of forward thinking?

[–]Ambiwlans 0 points1 point ago

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/Colorado-Springs-DIY-government.html

[–]Womec 2 points3 points ago

That could work , we could call it democracy and the votes would be in dollars, but instead from the people and not corporations...

[–]NoWeCant 2 points3 points ago

Well technically, we already "vote" for corporations with dollars.. and only the successful ones survive. I think it would be an interesting concept to apply to a government. Politicians create programs, and we get to directly "vote" for each one with our dollars.

The downside would be those that pay an absurdly large amount to the government.. they would have a larger "vote". Guess in the end it wouldn't be much different than today.

[–]Womec 1 point2 points ago

Yeah pretty much but interesting concept...

What if each year each citizen is give x amount of vote credits to give to each organization... Amount of vote credits = amount of funding maybe percentage from the budget. This would also free up congress to not argue about it every year.

The problem with this would be though, some people are just really really ignorant.

Although I think there are enough of rational people out there that this would work. Also ban political parties, or add ALOT more of them and treat them like corporations in that they can't have a monopoly.

[–]NoWeCant 1 point2 points ago

Yea that just might work if it were limited in some way to a percentage. The one thing it would do is encourage those that get by with only paying capital gains tax on investments to pay more taxes in an attempt to preserve their interests.

Political "parties" certainly need to go. There's too much overlap with the "two" we have now to result in any good for a representative democracy.

[–]Womec 1 point2 points ago

For it to change however, theres gonna have to be a revolution of some sort, a truly united world government, or a new country on mars or something to start over with.

Or maybe the corporations will just take over, and possibly the people who run them will do things right.

[–]NoWeCant 1 point2 points ago

Yep. Alas, it will not likely change given how exponentially more powerful our government is compared to citizens today than it was in the past.

[–]ImZeke 1 point2 points ago

I think a better system would be - poll voters on what share of the budget they think each program gets, and then give them that percentage.

In an unrelated fact, a ... 1996? survey found that the average estimate of NASA's budget by Americans in a poll was 20%

For reference that's 720B in fiscal 2011 dollars.

[–]Sheol -1 points0 points ago

No, but it is likely deductible.

[–]Augustus_Trollus_III 0 points1 point ago

Not a fucking chance this is deductible. a) they literally are the government, thus a deduction would negate the point in giving them the money in the first place.

Why donate if the very same organization gives it back>?

[–]Sheol 0 points1 point ago

You don't really know what deductible means do you? Deductible doesn't mean you get that money back out of your tax bill, it just means that it becomes non-taxable income. At most you are spending 1 dollar to save 35 cents. I'd say the government would be pretty excited about that deal.

[–]HamCannon 2 points3 points ago

i would want some more privileged information if i were to donate to nasa. HD stream on the ISS would suffice. Hell I'd pay monthly for it.

[–]Lars0 0 points1 point ago

Funny thing is that low-res streams exist if you can find it. NASA is terrible at selling itself.

[–]spammeaccount[S] 2 points3 points ago

I'd love to see the law changed so NASA can ask for donations publicly and donations can be specifically earmarked to favorite projects.

[–]davvblack 5 points6 points ago

specifically earmarked to favorite projects

*something something fungible*

[–]tabtabthesilly 3 points4 points ago

I think the government wants the control on which projects to give money to...

[–]absolut696 1 point2 points ago

I wonder what kind of funds these donations are considered. It's Federal law that money cannot be used or obligated by an agency unless it is specifically appropriated by Congress. These donations probably just end up falling back to treasury or paying for office parties or something.

[–]hiscifi 1 point2 points ago

can you donate to the department of defense too?

[–]swio 0 points1 point ago

Is it tax deductible

[–]steelerman82 0 points1 point ago

So you mean I could pay for 1 screw on the JWST? Shit Yeah!!

[–]clintonsclit4u -1 points0 points ago

why would i do that. keeping my money and goods out of reach of government and other parasites as much as possible is a part of my existence.

[–]hydrogenous 0 points1 point ago

I can't donate at all but I hope my upvote helps... If you don't want to donate to this please help donate towards undergraduate scholarships! I have to enlist in the military to finish my education (trust me; I have exhausted all options)! Imagine dying to get humans to Mars. I'm willing.

[–]salchichasyqueso 0 points1 point ago

The government should be donating to NASA......WITH MY TAX MONEY

[–]ImZeke 1 point2 points ago

And have it spent on climate change? No, thank you. This would be like saying we should invest in Tesla motors because Elon Musk owns SpaceX, too.

For reference: not a climate change denier, just don't care to see my space dollars allocated to earth science through NASA.

[–]rack88 2 points3 points ago

Supposedly SpaceX is going public in the near-future.

[–]api 2 points3 points ago

This has been discussed. I plan on buying some just to support them. I'm sure a lot of people will.

This money would be better spent than sending money to NASA.

[–]Ambiwlans -1 points0 points ago

This is a good example of why libertarianism doesn't work.

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

The same is true of any federal agency.

When the Union was first started, a large chunk of it's budget came from voluntary donations.

[–]nicksauce 1 point2 points ago

You can also donate to poor graduate students doing groundbreaking research in astronomy and astrophysics. Cough cough.

[–]api 0 points1 point ago*

I found myself wondering the other day: what would happen if Elon Musk set up a non-profit foundation and put "Make life multi-planetary, build a colony on Mars! Phase 1 goal: $100,000,000,000." on KickStarter.

Can you put a project on KickStarter with that kind of budget?

And if he did, what would happen? Obviously individuals couldn't make much of a dent, though some would donate. If it were really serious I would pledge a few hundred dollars. But I wonder if people in Bill Gates' bracket would make larger donations.

It would obviously have to be well-thought-out, with clear goals. It would probably want to be split into 3 phases:

  • Phase 1: Develop a reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch system, develop the technology tree required to build a sustainable habitat on Mars. Develop a Mars landing system for landing bulk cargo (Dragon could land humans). Develop robots capable of assembling hardware, inflating habitats, etc. before colonists arrive. Develop ion third stages to gradually ascend to a transfer orbit for cargo, to reduce cargo shipping cost. (This could also have a lot of value for unmanned science missions!)

  • Phase 2: Send unmanned cargo missions with robots to begin constructing habitats, outfitting the colonists with enough supplies to get off the ground. (I'm thinking several hundred flights.)

  • Phase 3: The manned flights. Probably several hundred, with reusable first stages to reduce cost, to send about a thousand colonists and other living supplies such as seeds, etc. This would be one-way: Mars or bust. The lander capsules could be dismantled for parts at the other end.

Followup rounds could send additional supplies, as needed, or fund R&D here to help with issues that the colonists run into.

[–]spammeaccount[S] 1 point2 points ago

Love the idea but the best place on Mars to colonize first is at the bottom of the trench. More air pressure, more protection from the sun and storms, easiest place to access submerged water if any exists. Initial colonists should all be women(frozen sperm/fertilized eggs don't take much space).

[–]api 0 points1 point ago*

"Initial colonists should be all women..."

Yeah... great way to get men to go... hah. But your biological rationale is quite interesting. Females also have some beneficial psychological biases: higher pain tolerance, higher threshold for adrenaline response, a cognitive bias toward breadth of expertise, etc. Their offspring would be a normal gender distribution. So the first colonists would be "mothers to a new world." Interesting.

As for spots to colonize: that's a huge debate that's coming. I can think of arguments for high-altitude locations. Technically they would be worse for many reasons, but psychologically they would be more interesting and less depressing... more light, more open space, clear sky, etc. If you look at where humans like to live on Earth, an interesting location trumps convenience. (More light could be beneficial too for agriculture and solar power... they'd need nuclear, but it would be good to have an abundant backup. It's not good to rely on only one source.) It would also take less delta-V to launch from a high altitude location. From the tops of the mountains you could probably launch cargo via mass driver (hydrogen cannon). So in addition to exporting information, as Elon Musk suggests, you might also be able to gun-launch some precious metals and rare elements on slow return trajectories.

[–]spammeaccount[S] 0 points1 point ago

The FIRST colony is starting from scratch. So the environment needs to provide as much as it can, especially in terms of shelter. It's a LOT easier to build a roof and two walls than it is a roof and 4 walls. The extra air pressure means the dome need not be as air tight and a lesser risk of pressurization failure. The lack of magnetic shielding means surface habitats need to provide a lot more protection than something that is deep in the trench. Olympus Mons would make a fine launch platform but for the first centuy or more a mars colony will be receiving dar far more than it sends out and it'll take that century to build a launch facility let alone the vehicles to launch. The predominant time of any such colony will be spent building habitat, farming, securing water supply, systems maintenance. The science research is what they'll be doing as a hobby.

[–]Mark_Lincoln 0 points1 point ago

Need A New Space Agency

[–]spammeaccount[S] 0 points1 point ago

Agreed the management of national aueronautics most definately breeds a tremendous amout of infighting at Nasa and certainly is detrimental to a goal oriented space program.

[–]partal -1 points0 points ago

Let's make this a thing where reddit is all awesome and pours money into something worthwhile

[–]JustPlainRude -1 points0 points ago

something worthwhile

NASA is a poor choice, then.

[–]partal 0 points1 point ago

aw, BURN!

[–]kevinjamez -2 points-1 points ago

Uh yeah that's what my taxes are for. Thanks though.

[–]BALTIM0R0N -1 points0 points ago

Yeah I'll get right on that

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 25224 on app-19 running 86c9e1d.