• 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!

23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirement

I love how the right wing is so quick to cry when one of their favorite useless programs is cut back or canceled. My first job in the civilian world was at a test reactor where materials were exposed to bursts of radiation with a long term goal of building submarine reactors that last longer. The engineers already knew from previous testing what to expect, but "there was money left in the budget" and they were going to retest and retest to use it all up.
 
Last edited:
So the government should be protecting those jobs at the expense of private companies that are expanding space launch capabilities?

Again and again it has been brought up that private companies don't have the budget or brain power necessary for space. So you fail.
 
Again and again it has been brought up that private companies don't have the budget or brain power necessary for space. So you fail.

So the people who build the F22, F35, who also operate space launches are too stupid to build and launch rockets (despite the fact they already do)

They dont have the budget because the government previously subsidied space launches. Now with the government out of the way, prices will rise in order to meet the true costs of putting objects into space.

So I think the person who fails here is you
 
So the people who build the F22, F35, who also operate space launches are too stupid to build and launch rockets (despite the fact they already do)

They dont have the budget because the government previously subsidied space launches. Now with the government out of the way, prices will rise in order to meet the true costs of putting objects into space.

So I think the person who fails here is you

Man, if my cell phone bill goes up more than a dollar a month, I am going to complain!!!!:lol:
 
Man, if my cell phone bill goes up more than a dollar a month, I am going to complain!!!!:lol:

Commie wants the US taxpayer to subsidize your cell phone bill

j/k
 
US manned access to space is a national defense priority.
In case you weren't aware of the fact, the U.S. military maintains a presence in outer space via the Air Force Space Command located at Vandenberg Air Force Base. . . and, no, national defense doesn't require people to actually be in outer space. National defense is being maintained through unmanned space missions. If you believe that manned missions are needed (without help from other nations) in order to maintain national defense, then please explain why.

The other duty the federal government has is the construction of "post roads". Again, developing the road to the future means taking a turn past Canaveral to get to the moon.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads."
The phrase "post Roads" doesn't mean "the road to the future". The phrase means that Congress has to power to establish physical roads to be used to deliver mail.

. . . developing the road to the future means taking a turn past Canaveral to get to the moon. No moon equals no future. . . the moon, which must be our national goal.
Oh? Why is that? Your evidence to support your claim is . . . ???
If you are going to claim that Americans need to return to the Moon, then please explain why.
 
We Melmacians understand the need for manned space flight, but the Florida Today story quoted says nothing to its readers about why you humans need to be in outer space. The story merely complains about the upcoming loss of civilian jobs.

Sure, I understand the hardship of losing one's job (just as I lost my "orbit guard" job when we Melmacians blew up our own planet). I also understand the need for the federal government to control the cost of space exploration during a time when the federal government has a huge budget deficit and an even larger national debt. Sadly, what is best for Brevard County, Florida isn't necessarily best for the nation.

The first question to be considered is this one:

Is Uncle Sam supposed to give money to NASA in order to prepare Mankind to escape a far-distant-future calamity, or is Uncle Sam supposed to give money to NASA just to prevent civilians from becoming unemployed?

Second question:

If a cheaper and better way to produce manned space flights were to be found, and if that way were to result in the elimination of some government jobs, then would you support the cheaper and better way knowing that some people on the government payroll would lose their jobs?

Third question:

If a cheaper and better way to produce manned space flights were to be found, and if that way were to result in manned space flight taking place somewhere other than in Florida, then would you support the cheaper and better way knowing that it would result in jobs leaving Florida?

[Oh, for the record, while in my human guise, I was permanently laid-off my job in 2008 - and I hadn't blown up anything. So I personally understand the anguish and trouble that comes with losing one's job due to no fault of one's own.]
 
I like how President Bush's administration canceling the shuttle is somehow President Obama's fault.

Cancelling the Aries and Constellation programs is your Messiah's fault. That's the important part. The Shuttle a dinosaur, and a poory designed dinosaur at that. It was going to fail anyway.

Besides, the shuttle ended up costing way more than it was supposed to.

That's because it's design was modified by politicians, not engineers.

The re-usable launch vehicle turned out to be outrageously expensive to maintain.

You mean the partially resusable vehicle.

The original concept had a supersonic carrier craft to get the orbiter to the top of the atmosphere before it's engines ignited, giving it greater launch versatility and shorter turn around times.

The inspection and replacement of all the heat-shielding after reentry costs a fortune.

That's the nature of poor design.

The Ares rockets were supposed to eventually replace the shuttle, but I think those are being shelved for now due to budgetary constraints.

Yes. The Messiah figures to plug a $500B gap in Medicaid with a$55B cut in the national technological future. Socialists are so friggin' short sighted and stupid, too.

We still have regular rockets to launch all those mind-reading satellites, though, so conspiracy theorists have nothing to fear... err... well, you know what I mean.

Right.

The destruction of the Columbia put the LSAT mission on the skids. Originally designed to be launched in a vertical configuration as a simply supported beam (ie, pinned connections at both ends of the spacecraft to isolate the satellite from the launch vehicle structural load path) it was now required to be launched on a Titan or equivalent booster mounted as a vertical cantilver (ie, secured at the bottom with the connection carrying the full mass and load factor of the satellite, and reacting the moments as well). This configuration required a complete re-design of the satellite's structural truss and it was determined that it was not physically possible to construct a truss of that length with the mass distribution of the instrument that would meet the strength and stiffness constraints of the launch vehicle inside the payload capability of the rocket without greatly exceeding the budget allocated for the project.

Other space missions are being facing similar constraints due to the nation's failure to provide a suitable heavy lift launch vehicle in time to replace the decrepit shuttle.

The James Webb Space Telescope will be launched on a French Ariane V because the US does not have the Ares.

US manned access to space will be contingent upon the good will of the Russians and Chinese, the only two nations possessing active manned space programs after the demise of the shuttle and the Messiah's short-sighted cuts.
 
Your reference to the Iraq war situation is particularly apt. Just like it's ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the orderly winding down and decreased fatalities in Iraq when all he's doing is following Bush's plan, it's equally ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the retirement of the space shuttle when all he's doing is following Bush's plan.

The issue isn't the termination of the Shuttle program, though IMO the Shuttle should be kept operational until the Ares/Constellation programs come on line, the issue is that the Messiah wants to kill the Ares and Constellation programs, in effect giving the moon to China.

THIS is why owing money to foreign countries is DANGEROUS.
 
I love how the right wing is so quick to cry when one of their favorite useless programs is cut back or canceled. My first job in the civilian world was at a test reactor where materials were exposed to bursts of radiation with a long term goal of building submarine reactors that last longer. The engineers already knew from previous testing what to expect, but "there was money left in the budget" and they were going to retest and retest to use it all up.

Hmmm....so space exploration is "useless"? Has no relation to national defense or commercial success?
 
So the people who build the F22, F35, who also operate space launches are too stupid to build and launch rockets (despite the fact they already do)

They dont have the budget because the government previously subsidied space launches. Now with the government out of the way, prices will rise in order to meet the true costs of putting objects into space.

So I think the person who fails here is you

Right.

When France, Russia, China, India, and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry of a country is subsidizing their commercial launch efforts?

You have even the slightest grip on reality, or is that pig just too thorougly greased to handle?
 
I love how the right wing is so quick to cry when one of their favorite useless programs is cut back or canceled.

The space program is useless? You can't be serious.

And "right-wing"? The last time I checked, JFK was a Democrat. The space-program is American - that's probably why Obama wants to get rid of it and concentrate on the AGW hoax...

My first job in the civilian world was at a test reactor where materials were exposed to bursts of radiation with a long term goal of building submarine reactors that last longer. The engineers already knew from previous testing what to expect, but "there was money left in the budget" and they were going to retest and retest to use it all up.

So, because some guys you worked with wasted tax money, the space program is useless?

:confused:

How does that work?
 
So the people who build the F22, F35, who also operate space launches are too stupid to build and launch rockets (despite the fact they already do)

They dont have the budget because the government previously subsidied space launches. Now with the government out of the way, prices will rise in order to meet the true costs of putting objects into space.

So I think the person who fails here is you

Wait, let me get this straight...you think the private sector is going to invest billions and even trillions of dollars in space exploration when there is virtually zero profit to be had? Please, explain this business model to me...
 
Like paying for you Rx benefits. If that's your picture I guess you'll be needing them soon. ;) Maybe there some other social programs we could get going again, like midnight basketball. We could buy more condoms for high schools kids, since they won't need to study math and science anymore they can just **** around all day. What do we need math and science for if we reducing the military and eliminating the space program. It's high time we dumped JFK's legacy anyway, now that Teddy is dead and buried.

Yeah, because I meant social programs. You know me, always advocating those social programs. :roll:

When I say money can be spent for more worthwhile ventures, I mean giving people that money back so that they can choose what to do with it.
 
Again and again it has been brought up that private companies don't have the budget or brain power necessary for space. So you fail.

You know why? Because it isn't profitable. Know why? Because it uses up more resources than we gain from it.
 
You know why? Because it isn't profitable. Know why? Because it uses up more resources than we gain from it.

This is totally untrue. The technological and strategic benefits from space exploration are immense, and the potential gains from space exploitation are virtually unlimited. I can't believe people actually think the space program at NASA is useless. That has to be the most anti-American (and inaccurate) sentiment I've heard in a while. The United States must be on the forefront of space exploration. We cannot allow the Russians and the Chinese to gain the edge in that regard. It may not matter to you in the short term, but in the long run it's absolutely essential to the security and prosperity of our country. How do you think Americans will fair a hundred years from now when Russia launches the first battle-cruiser into space? Do you honestly think that space won't be weaponized and colonized?
 
Last edited:
This totally untrue. The technological and strategic benefits from space exploration are immense, and the potential gains from space exploitation are virtually unlimited.

We pour in how much and get how much back? Any rough estimates or is this just your gut feeling?

I can't believe people actually think the space program at NASA is useless.

I never said useless. I just said unprofitable.

That has to be the most anti-American (and inaccurate) sentiment I've heard in a while. The United States must be on the forefront of space exploration. We cannot allow the Russians and the Chinese to gain the edge in that regard. It may not matter to you in the short term, but in the long run it's absolutely essential to the security and prosperity of our country. How do you think Americans will fair a hundred years from now when Russia launches the first battle-cruiser into space? Do you honestly think that space won't be weaponized and colonized?

We don't have a strategic missle defense shield? No unmanned space missions? I'm just telling you that we don't need manned space missions for security. We have satellites, SAMs, and other defenses. Do we really need men in space for protection? Are we going to have a Moonraker style fight in space in the next 10 years? 25? 50?
 
In case you weren't aware of the fact, the U.S. military maintains a presence in outer space via the Air Force Space Command located at Vandenberg Air Force Base. . . and, no, national defense doesn't require people to actually be in outer space. National defense is being maintained through unmanned space missions. If you believe that manned missions are needed (without help from other nations) in order to maintain national defense, then please explain why.

Because robots won't be mining the mineral resources on the moon, or defending them, and Americans won't be on THEIR moon if your Messiah is allowed kill Constellation and Ares.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads."

The phrase "post Roads" doesn't mean "the road to the future". The phrase means that Congress has to power to establish physical roads to be used to deliver mail.

Right.

The physical road to space involves advanced rocketry.

But...if we want to take your interpretation, then it means "doing the research to build monocrystalline diamond cables to support equatorial elevator to a geosynchronous space station." Which means we STILL need Ares and Constellation.

Oh? Why is that? Your evidence to support your claim is . . . ???
If you are going to claim that Americans need to return to the Moon, then please explain why.

1) While the Messiah-killed Air Borne Laser Test Bed worked FLAWLESSLY and would be, if it hadn't been killed, a reliable theatre defense system, no current or projected ABM system is capable of defending against a stealthed nuclear warhead launched electrically from the moon and entering atmosphere at 12 kilometers per second.

The Messiah does not like a defended America, anyway.

2) Germany and Italy, in 1900, had spend 0 years of the previous three hundred developing 0 colonies overseas. Neither nation is a significant player in the global marketplace now. The other European nation', notably France, Spain, and Britain, dominated the world political scene for those three centuries. Since there are no moon people, there no moral issues with seizing moon resources and exploiting them. If the US does not work to get it's share, the US will cease to be relevant, and that will happen in the near future.

3) China in the 1400's had ships capable of crossing the Pacific and exploring California. The short sighted policies of your Messiah were first employed by the Emperor of China who refused such expeditions. China remained an economic and cultural and scientific backwater while Europe rose to global ascendancy. China is not repeated the failed mistakes of it's past, your Messiah should not be allowed to repeat the failed mistakes of China's past, either.

4) Confuscius say "he who hold all the cards wins the game". If the Messiah is successful in his order to kill the US manned space program, the United States will no longer have cards in the game.

5) Explain why the Battle of Bunker Hill was tactically important, why the Redcoats were willing to spend so many lives to get the patriots off that hill.

6) Why were old European castles routinely built on high nearly inaccessible mountain peaks?
 
Hmmm....so space exploration is "useless"? Has no relation to national defense or commercial success?

Space exploration can be done with unmanned probes. The only defense or commercial interests are related to satellites, which can be done by unmanned rockets.
The ideas of a manned site on the moon, and/or a manned trip to mars (most likely TO, and not back again), are stupidly expensive. Let China have it....let them deplete their coffers. Their people are already accustomed to having little to nothing.
 
This is totally untrue. The technological and strategic benefits from space exploration are immense, and the potential gains from space exploitation are virtually unlimited. I can't believe people actually think the space program at NASA is useless. That has to be the most anti-American (and inaccurate) sentiment I've heard in a while. The United States must be on the forefront of space exploration. We cannot allow the Russians and the Chinese to gain the edge in that regard. It may not matter to you in the short term, but in the long run it's absolutely essential to the security and prosperity of our country. How do you think Americans will fair a hundred years from now when Russia launches the first battle-cruiser into space? Do you honestly think that space won't be weaponized and colonized?

Man, you watch way too much science fiction on TV.....
 
The first question to be considered is this one:

Is Uncle Sam supposed to give money to NASA in order to prepare Mankind to escape a far-distant-future calamity, or is Uncle Sam supposed to give money to NASA just to prevent civilians from becoming unemployed?

No. The federal government has a constitutional duty to defend the nation and that means manned space program.

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to build roads where none existed before. Which means a manned space program.

And by "manned program" I mean a well thought out program of incremental improvements with the goal of identifying and then exploiting solar system resources for the commercial success of and military defense of the United States.

Killing the manned space program is doing exactly the wrong thing.

Which is what we expect of the Messiah.


Second question:

If a cheaper and better way to produce manned space flights were to be found, and if that way were to result in the elimination of some government jobs, then would you support the cheaper and better way knowing that some people on the government payroll would lose their jobs?

If pigs had wings would they be kosher?

Third question:

If a cheaper and better way to produce manned space flights were to be found, and if that way were to result in manned space flight taking place somewhere other than in Florida, then would you support the cheaper and better way knowing that it would result in jobs leaving Florida?

Irrelevant. Fact of the matter is that Floriduh!, like it or not, is currently where our civillian launch assets are invested. If it makes financial sense to move or abandon those facilities in favor of some other to expedite space access, then that should happen.

Since we're discussing the complete abandonment of US manned space activity, and not any form of relocation, your question is again irrelevant.
 
You know why? Because it isn't profitable. Know why? Because it uses up more resources than we gain from it.

You're referring to some other agency than NASA, right, because you know that NASA is the only government agency that returned to the economy roughly seven dollars in spinoff technology for each dollar of taxpayer funding in it's budget. So what agency are you discussing?

I'm certainly in favor of eliminating programs that cost more than they produce, like Socialist Security, federal farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, the EPA, welfare, etc, etc, etc. Especially the unconstitutonal ones, which are all those listed plus the etc, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
You're referring to some other agency than NASA, right, because you know that NASA is the only government agency that returned to the economy roughly seven dollars in spinoff technology for each dollar of taxpayer funding in it's budget. So what agency are you discussing?

I'm certainly in favor of eliminating programs that cost more than they produce, like Socialist Security, federal farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, the EPA, welfare, etc, etc, etc. Especially the unconstitutonal ones, which are all those listed plus the etc, etc etc.

according to the PR branch of NASA, no doubt....:shock:
 
We pour in how much and get how much back? Any rough estimates or is this just your gut feeling?

It'll take a while to load but is well worth the wait. Keep in mind, this doesn't account for strategic advantages.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/pdf/spinoff2009.pdf

I never said useless. I just said unprofitable.

Just because something is unprofitable doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

We don't have a strategic missle defense shield? No unmanned space missions? I'm just telling you that we don't need manned space missions for security. We have satellites, SAMs, and other defenses. Do we really need men in space for protection? Are we going to have a Moonraker style fight in space in the next 10 years? 25? 50?

It's kind of hard to conduct basic research without humans. It's also hard to repair and maintain complex instruments without them. Man must be apart of the exploration process. Machines cannot fill that void. Personally, I think we should give space 100% and that includes humans. If we could cut entitlement spending, we'd have more than enough to fund continued space exploration.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom