Supposedly not as it is said to be a waste as money as we are not guaranteed to find anything and we have better things to spend money on, especially during a credit crunch.
No. The ozone layer would be more easily destroyed than cooled by anything lofted there.
because it wanted to know more about space
No. Space shuttles are Too Dangerous: Challenger and Columbia, RIP. NASA is going to build a new rocket to send people in to space, but, there will be no more space shuttles.
It is cheaper and more efficient.
technically, no. NASA is a company that puts on programs that help humans learn more about space. they do use the Kennedy space center in Florida to launch spacecrafts.
NASA has sent a number of space craft to Mars, including a surveyor and several rovers. More missions are planned.
not by NASA, yet there are private companies of space travel, and other countries' space programs.
Because sending manned missions to the moon is very expensive and NASA has a limited budget.
The acronym NASA abbreviates the title of the 1958-established US agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.See link below for more information on the NASA.National Aeronautic and Space Administration.NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.The N stands for (National) Aeronautics Space Administration.National Aeronautics Space Administration and ESA is European space agencyAww, do you mean the meaning of the abbreviation NASA?It means National Aeronautics and Space Administration.NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA is a government agency in much the same way that the CIA and FBI are government agencies. NASA deals with the space program.
They are not, they have the same computer system since the early 80's. Your computer is more powerful than the space shuttles'.
NASA does not use spac shuttle any more
No, NASA has done its part, NASA's Apollo program has put a man on the moon, the space shuttle has delivered important people and supplies to the space station. The 17.6 Billion NASA gets per year could be used to make tax cuts and be given as grants to private space industries. I'm not against NASA i mean we would be no where without NASA but i think its time for them to go. The private space companies are a branch off of NASA think of the private industries as kids of NASA and NASA is getting old so they should fade away and let their "kids" continue their legacy. In conclusion NASA should let the private companies discover new tech and more efficient tech, and i think that NASA should fade back in after that, to cut cost by letting the private companies do the research.