• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to End NASA Constellation Program

Harshaw said:
:roll:

Reading comprehension is obviously not strong with you.

Currently, NASA's budget is $18.7 billion, and increases are figured.

Multiply that by five (2011-2015), what do you get?

That's right -- $93 billion. Without increases.

Is $55 billion more than $93 billion? Does it "greatly exceed" it?

The article refers to what Obama's budget estimate for manned space flight programs was over those years, within the NASA budget, not in excess of it -- and it also refers to what some panel calls "worthwhile manned space flight," not just the Constellation program.

And even if you increased the initial estimate from 93 billion over five years to 104 billion over five years -- which you would not have to do; you can simply shift funds within the budget instead of adding to it (like what they're DOING!) -- you'd have $20.8 billion a year instead of $18.7 billion. That's not "greatly exceeding." :roll:

To say nothing of the fact that $55 billion, a mere $11 billion a year, for manned space flight is chickenfeed. Table scraps. A rounding error. Hardly a blip on hardly a blip. Hell, there's $350 billion in unused TARP funds sitting there that they don't want to give back, and they aren't spending it, so that takes care of the whole shebang almost seven times over.
Click to expand...

Put things in their proper perspective:

The WASTE in Medicare in 2009 ALONE was $50 billion, which means we could have paid for a complete new moon mission, from scratch, ever year from Medicare savings alone.

And Medicare isn't even Constitutional.
 
American said:
Is that the way it was during the Mercury/Apollo series? You think they were counting the number of technology spin-offs? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, they were most definitely counting on the military advantages of having a robust manned space program and missile launchers in the Saturn V class, since the H-weapons of the time were huge.
 
AgentM said:
No, I'm just saying, there's no guarantees of useful advancements for civilians.
Click to expand...

Sure there is.

Look at the problems needing resolution:

1) A complete understanding of a engineering requirements of a fully closed biosphere. Would have impact on urban development and high density living scenarios.

2) Understanding of the social dynamics of a complete community evolving in the most hostile environment possible, with clear applications for social engineering on earth.

3) Novel applications of technology to real world problems ALWAYS engenders commercially viable spin-offs to the benefit of everyone. Example, search for the British Interplanetary Soceity's article on the use of superconductors for trans-lunar power transfer.

4) The mere fact that men are living and making careers on the moon would inspire generations for REAL "hope and change", not the nonsense conmen like Obama promise all the time.

Oh, wait.

Obama just killed the goose that laid real hope and change eggs, didn't he?

I'm betting, with NASA suppliers being spread out across the nation like they are, that the Constellation program will have enough Congressional support to thumb it's nose at the False Messiah.
 
AgentM said:
See, this is where America's whole problem with fiscal conservatism comes in. Tack on extra "chicken feed" as you put it, to a whole bunch of different programs (including Defence), add some pork spending, problems with entitlement programs and that adds up to a lot of chicken feed! That is how fiscal conservatism works, you have to find the savings wherever you can. I'm not saying Obama is a fiscal conservative, he's not enough of one for my tastes.

However, you're not really making a strong argument about why we should keep the Moon mission, your only points are symbolic nationalism, and a hope of technological advancement.
Click to expand...

No, it' adds up to $55 billion dollars over a decade, which could be covered by cutting the Unconstitutional National Endowment for the Arts, the Ag Subsidies, including ethanol, and selling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the highest commercial bidder.


National Endowment for the Arts: $.16B unconstitutional dollars annually.
National Endowment for the Humanities: $0.17B unconstitutional dollars annually.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $0.40B unconstitutional dollars annually.
Ethanol Subsidies: $4.0 B unconstitutional dollars in 2008

It's clear we can find a away to finance NASA without raising taxes and without adding to the federal deficit.

Question: How much money would the government realize by auctioning the bandwidth currently wasted on PBS to commercial interests? We're talking radio and TV licenses in hundreds of US cities.
 
AgentM said:
Apparently you don't understand how Obama's policy is a saved $11 Billion. And that's just the estimation, NASA would very likely go over-budget on a manned Moon mission. Even when Obama increases the NASA budget for climate change, it won't be as much as he would have to for a manned mission!

You even admitted that $11 billion would be more than Obama is spending now. And yet now you go back and say there aren't savings, and you call me a fool? Yeesh.
Click to expand...

How can it be saved when it's going to be spent elsewhere ten times faster?

Wouldn't the savings come from not spending on the unconstitutional program instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom