• 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

Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...
They do it with the government's money! If they didn't have that their would be nothing.
No smart people thinking about space exploration no money for rockets hell there might not have even been a LMT.
 
UtahBill said:
Man, you watch way too much science fiction on TV.....
Click to expand...

Nice insult. It really shows how wrong I am...:roll:

Is it your contention that humans will never weaponize and colonize space?
 
Ethereal said:
Nice insult. It really shows how wrong I am...:roll:

Is it your contention that humans will never weaponize and colonize space?
Click to expand...

Never? that is an absolute. I prefer expressions like "when pigs fly" into a "hell that has frozen over".

The technology to make a space ship habitable long term for humans has not been invented yet. Just living on the moon will require considerable shielding to keep out the radiation. All I have seen so far about it has us living on the surface, and it should be obvious that we should go way underground.
 
UtahBill said:
Space exploration can be done with unmanned probes.
Click to expand...

True. It was a robot that unfurled the jammed solar array on Skylab.

No, wait, it was an astronaut.

Machines have their place in the exploration and explotation of the universe.

So do men.

And man's place isn't inside an air conditioned hut in Huston, but trodding the soil of alien planets. Because pre-planning can never cover every contingency.

Goyboy said:
The only defense or commercial interests are related to satellites, which can be done by unmanned rockets.
Click to expand...

Until the moon is exploited.

Then your argument falters.

Of course, with known water deposits on the moon, there are known commericial values on the moon. And men go where the money is.

Goyboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really?

I could design a means of exploiting commercially valuable deposits on the moon for les than a hundred gigabucks. It's no where near as difficult as some want you to think.

Goyboy said:
Let China have it....let them deplete their coffers. Their people are already accustomed to having little to nothing.
Click to expand...

Right. Let China exploit the water on the Moon to become the masters of the solar system's resources, let the United States wallow in failed socialist policies.

Great plan for you children and grand children you have there.
 
Ethereal said:
Just because something is unprofitable doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
Click to expand...

In 1940 the US Army was training recruits using wooden rifles, because Congress didn't think it was worth the expense of training with live ammo.

That worked out well, didn't it?

Ethereal said:
It's kind of hard to conduct basic research without humans. It's also hard to repair and maintain complex instruments without them.
Click to expand...

You and I can say "repairs and maintenance to the Hubble Space Telescope". The Luddites hear "robotrobotrobotrobotrobotrobotrobotrobot". They want to pretend Man's presence isn't essential to space exploitation.

robotMan 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.[/QUOTE]

We have enough to fund space exploration. What needs to happen is the Congress has to stop monkeying with programs once they initiate them. The International Space Station is almost two decades late because of Congressional interference, and a coherent and consistent policy must be formulated and adhered to.
 
UtahBill said:
Never? that is an absolute. I prefer expressions like "when pigs fly" into a "hell that has frozen over".

The technology to make a space ship habitable long term for humans has not been invented yet.
Click to expand...

We're discussing a planetary colony on the moon, not an arkship.

Different requirements, more resources.

A lunar colony is a submarine with a greenhouse and no propeller.

UtahBill said:
Just living on the moon will require considerable shielding to keep out the radiation.
Click to expand...

That shielding has already been invented.

I think God calls it "dirt".


UtahBill said:
All I have seen so far about it has us living on the surface, and it should be obvious that we should go way underground.
Click to expand...

You need to see more. The obvious solution to lunar habitation problems is under ground. Which is something every science fiction author has mentioned in the last 80 years.
 
UtahBill said:
Never? that is an absolute. I prefer expressions like "when pigs fly" into a "hell that has frozen over".
Click to expand...

So, you answer is, "Yes, humans will eventually weaponize and colonize space."

The technology to make a space ship habitable long term for humans has not been invented yet.
Click to expand...

:doh

Well, duh, Utah! Of course it hasn't been invented yet. That's the whole point of conducting research.

Just living on the moon will require considerable shielding to keep out the radiation. All I have seen so far about it has us living on the surface, and it should be obvious that we should go way underground.
Click to expand...

Either way, we should set lofty goals and attempt to achieve them in a shorter time frame than other countries. This is called "exceptionalism".
 
Ethereal said:
Just because something is unprofitable doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does.

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.
Click to expand...

Why can't machines? That's not a self-evident claim.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Originally Posted by Goyboy
The only defense or commercial interests are related to satellites, which can be done by unmanned rockets.
Click to expand...
Until the moon is exploited.

Then your argument falters.

Of course, with known water deposits on the moon, there are known commericial values on the moon. And men go where the money is.

Originally Posted by Goyboy
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.
Click to expand...
Really?

I could design a means of exploiting commercially valuable deposits on the moon for les than a hundred gigabucks. It's no where near as difficult as some want you to think.

Originally Posted by Goyboy
Let China have it....let them deplete their coffers. Their people are already accustomed to having little to nothing.
Click to expand...
Right. Let China exploit the water on the Moon to become the masters of the solar system's resources, let the United States wallow in failed socialist policies.

Great plan for you children and grand children you have there.
Click to expand...
Scarecrow Akhbar, could you please attribute quotes to the correct people? I am not the person who said the things that you quoted.
 
phattonez said:
Actually, it does.
Click to expand...

Of course. You say so, so it must be true. How profitable is the military, by the way?

Why can't machines? That's not a self-evident claim.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, machines are incapable of abstract reasoning, which means they are incapable of operating outside certain parameters, e.g., conducting research and repairing delicate machinery in space.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...
My Messiah is Christ Jesus. Who is yours?

By the way, in 1967 the USA ratified the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Article II of the treaty states, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

In short, the USA doesn't own the Moon.

Article IV of the treaty states the following:
"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

China and Russia both signed onto the treaty. So, who is supposed to shoot at the USA from the Moon?
 
Goyboy said:
My Messiah is Christ Jesus. Who is yours?

By the way, in 1967 the USA ratified the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Article II of the treaty states, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

In short, the USA doesn't own the Moon.

Article IV of the treaty states the following:
"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

China and Russia both signed onto the treaty. So, who is supposed to shoot at the USA from the Moon?
Click to expand...

Maybe not the moon, but any all out war will include shooting down satellites, and both sides will be launching up new ones right away to try to replace them. There is no doubt about that, because there are many weapons that need GPS and there are many other satellites the military uses.

A couple videos related to those satellites:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpPwMu3foGg"]YouTube- The Truth About GPS: How it works[/nomedia]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev4NuHiNEfA"]YouTube- AF Space Command in the Fight[/ame]
 
For what it's worth, I never said that I agree with President Obama's proposal to cancel the Constellation program.

Also, what I am wanting is for people to understand the ultimate reason for going into outer space.

Former NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin said, "But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive." [Quote Source]

During the first season of the TV show Babylon 5, character Commander Jeffrey Sinclair explains why it is necessary for humans to be in outer space. In short, humans have to find a home somewhere outside of the Earth's star system because a time will come when the Earth's sun dies, resulting in the extinction of all life within the Earth's star system.

Although Babylon 5 is fictional, its message about the ultimate death of our Sun is accurate. That is the ultimate reason for humans entering outer space - to find a new home for humanity.
 
phattonez said:
You know why? Because it isn't profitable. Know why? Because it uses up more resources than we gain from it.
Click to expand...

Just like the Interstate Highway system.

Oh, wait, the Interstates, a constitutionally valid "post road", helped the nation grow, and space exploration has helped the US grow, too. Go figure.
 
phattonez said:
Actually, it does.



Why can't machines? That's not a self-evident claim.
Click to expand...

I've asked my computer many times to go out and change the brakes on my van. The wimply thing just sits there on the desk and won't do it.

Some jobs take a man.

The important ones.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Just like the Interstate Highway system.

Oh, wait, the Interstates, a constitutionally valid "post road", helped the nation grow, and space exploration has helped the US grow, too. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Scarecrow, I don't mind you advocating space exploration, but you are taking the expression "post road" out of its constitutional context.

"A post road is a road designated for the transportation of postal mail." - Wikipedia
 
Goyboy said:
My Messiah is Christ Jesus. Who is yours?
Click to expand...

Me.

Goyboy said:
By the way, in 1967 the USA ratified the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Article II of the treaty states, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

In short, the USA doesn't own the Moon.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think the strength of a treaty is when it was signed when absolutely no one had the ability to put men on the moon and no knowledge of the wealth up there, when there are now several countries vying for resources on a global scale?

Hmmm?

Oh, and do I say the US owns the moon anywhere here? So what was the point of your non sequitur, any? To pretend that the nation that first goes up to seize and exploit the water found there will have to "share" with everyone? That does't work in the real world, bud. If the Chinese go up first and start mining ice, they're not going to let the US pick up a shovel next to them, just like the US wouldn't let them, either.

No one tolerates claim jumpers.

Goyboy said:
Article IV of the treaty states the following:
"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

China and Russia both signed onto the treaty. So, who is supposed to shoot at the USA from the Moon?
Click to expand...

China or Russia.

Explain the options if China ships nuclear weapons to it's lunar base without the formaility of telling us about it.

Hint: don't place your faith in old books or pieces of paper. Understand the evil that lurks in all men.
 
Goyboy said:
Scarecrow, I don't mind you advocating space exploration, but you are taking the expression "post road" out of its constitutional context.

"A post road is a road designated for the transportation of postal mail." - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Ah, wiki. Wiki never has any errors or misconceptions.

:roll:

So what happens when an American is living on the Chinese Moon colony?

Will it be okay to build the space elevator then to deliver letters to Neil Armstrong X?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, and do I say the US owns the moon anywhere here?
Click to expand...
Scarecrow, in Post #44 you wrote, "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." Your statement implies that the Moon is owned by the Americans.

By the way, the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines "post road" as "a route over which mail is carried".

The Constitutional Dictionary defines a "post road" as "a road over which mail is carried".

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require the U.S. government to send people into outer space, even if it were a good idea to do so.

Again, I don't mind you promoting the sending of Americans into outer space. However, your attempt to use the U.S. Constitution to justify your position falls as flat as a lead balloon.
 
Goyboy said:
My Messiah is Christ Jesus. Who is yours?

By the way, in 1967 the USA ratified the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Article II of the treaty states, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

In short, the USA doesn't own the Moon.

Article IV of the treaty states the following:
"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

China and Russia both signed onto the treaty. So, who is supposed to shoot at the USA from the Moon?
Click to expand...

Those are just words on a piece of paper.
 
40% of all the space shuttles have exploded killing their crews. Two out of five.

I am glad that the space shuttle program is over. It was a program that delved the depths of human hubris and misjudgment more than the cluttered space of low to middle earth orbit.

Manned space flight makes no sense to me at this time. Too much time, money and energy is needed in pushing water and oxygen up and bringing astronauts back down.

I believe robotic space exploration is the way to go for the foreseeable future and the Hubble space telescope demonstrates that the people's imagination and support can be obtained by such.
 
Chappy said:
40% of all the space shuttles have exploded killing their crews. Two out of five.

I am glad that the space shuttle program is over. It was a program that delved the depths of human hubris and misjudgment more than the cluttered space of low to middle earth orbit.

Manned space flight makes no sense to me at this time. Too much time, money and energy is needed in pushing water and oxygen up and bringing astronauts back down.

I believe robotic space exploration is the way to go for the foreseeable future and the Hubble space telescope demonstrates that the people's imagination and support can be obtained by such.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it. The between-flight maintenance required for the shuttle was grossly underestimated by the designers. It's certainly understandable, nobody had ever done anything like this before. In the end, it turned out to be too expensive, we're better off with one-time use vehicles, which is what the Ares-V was supposed to get back to.

Little strapped for cash at the moment so we might have to put that on the back-burner. :(
 
Chappy said:
40% of all the space shuttles have exploded killing their crews. Two out of five.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the Space Shuttle. We're talking about the cancellation of the Constellation program and the Ares rocket. Obama has basically destroyed a pillar of American society and any hopes for continued advance in space exploration.

I am glad that the space shuttle program is over. It was a program that delved the depths of human hubris and misjudgment more than the cluttered space of low to middle earth orbit.

Manned space flight makes no sense to me at this time. Too much time, money and energy is needed in pushing water and oxygen up and bringing astronauts back down.
Click to expand...

Actually, too much time, money, and energy is being used to subsidize the living costs of America's welfare class. Space exploration is a worthwhile venture; paying for some fools cable subscription is not.

I believe robotic space exploration is the way to go for the foreseeable future and the Hubble space telescope demonstrates that the people's imagination and support can be obtained by such.
Click to expand...

And who fixes the Hubble when its broken?
 
Ethereal said:
Space exploration is a worthwhile venture; paying for some fools cable subscription is not.
Click to expand...
So true. We Melmacians benefited greatly from space exploration. That's how we found a home on Earth after we accidentally blew up Melmac.

. . . and that's how Mankind will find a new home outside of the Earth's solar system . . . before the Sun dies, that is.



Ethereal said:
And who fixes the Hubble when its broken?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not available for that job, but I have a friend who is.
marvin-the-martian-film.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom