• 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!

What should NASA do now

Where should NASA focus its energies now? (vote for as many as you want)

  • New manned (and womanned) missions to the moon.

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • More scientific probes to Mars.

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Sending astronauts to Mars

    Votes: 17 47.2%
  • Better satellite systems

    Votes: 18 50.0%
  • Finding extra terrestrial life

    Votes: 11 30.6%
  • More space-based telescopes

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Scrap NASA; we have more important things to spend our resources on

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • Total voters
    36
At the moment, everything hinges on getting cheap surface-to-orbit technology. Once you get into orbit, it's cheap and easy to do anything else. The launch costs all the money. We need to develop some sort of cheap, easy and fast launching system that can get large amounts of material into orbit, then we can worry about the rest.

The shuttle program was great for what it was, unfortunately what it was was 60s technology, strapping a shuttle onto a bomb. Sometimes, the bomb goes off.
 
That's what I am thinking. Why did we get rid of the shuttle program anyway?

I watched a program on that the other day. The shuttle is being scrapped because it wasn't necessarily effective, it wasn't being used for what it was designed for, and it wasn't as cheap as it was supposed to be. It was called "the shuttle" because it was supposed to be cheap to fly and quick for turn-around and reusing. However, it wasn't and it proved to be dangerous as well with the multiple disasters. Also, it was designed for "shuttling" to a giant space station that was never built. The whole program was scrapped even though it had been paid for.

Those are the main reasons it was scrapped. They are looking at new options for the future.
 
Last edited:
I think NASA already has a new job.

Trying to figure out why Toyotas accelerate by themselves.
 
Where should NASA focus its energies now?

The Kenyan Tyrant already made the decision...........

Obama Tells NASA to Improve Muslim Relations

Obama Tells NASA to Improve Muslim Relations

In a July 2 interview, Bolden told Al Jazeera's Imran Garda that when he took over at NASA, Obama had directed him to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

From the moon......to appeasing a bunch or religous whack jobs.....NASA........
.
.
.
.
 
Look, if the whole idea of privatizing space exploration is to get more eyes looking at it and more money invested in it, engaging the Muslim world and helping them get a seat at the table is a legitimate space policy goal. Imagine the extravagant building projects in Dubai, and now imagine them in space. Imagine OPEC going all-in to help us build solar panels and microwave emitters on the moon. Hell, imagine a generation of Muslim kids all over the world growing up with Muslim astronauts to look up to instead of radical clerics and martyrs.

Should it be NASA's top priority? No, of course not. But helping Muslims figure out which direction to pray to on the ISS is a small investment with the potential for a big payoff.
 
Where should NASA focus its energies now?

The Kenyan Tyrant already made the decision...........



From the moon......to appeasing a bunch or religous whack jobs.....NASA........
.
.
.
.

So he's trying to put Muslims on Mars.....all of them? :mrgreen:








j/k
 
I would have voted other if I could have, or all of the above except the silly one and scrapping NASA it needs to be revamped and made pricate with Government backing.

NASA should hire Bert Rutan creator of the Voyager, first plane to fly nonstop around the Word, and Space Ship One fart private craft in space, is the most innovative aircraft designer since, Jack Northrop of Flying wing fame, and Kelly Johnson, who was the greatest ever for his time. He created the P-38 Lightening for WW-II, the U-2 and SR-71, and ran the Lockheed Skunk Works.

Bert Rutan is today's greatest engineer and if he had some real money available there is no telling what he could come up with.

Space Ship One
virgingalactic.jpg

Other Rutan designs
RutanAircraftFactory.jpg


Since right after the USSR put Sputnik in orbit we have been the leader in space and all technology and the spin offs have made a huge improvement to life on this planet for just about the whole World, and we need to stay there.

Face the facts the Earth has a shelf life ane if Man is going to continue to be, we have to get off this rock and the research needs to be on going so that we don't all end whan the Sun expands and this Planet becomes a "burned out cinder."

You don't know the real Bert Rutan. He's the face that gets the money. Behind the scenes he had very good engineers, but if you watch his interview on his round the world flight, he did a lot of stupid stupid things that were only over come by the people that surrounded him and luck...mostly luck.
 
At the least, the U.S. should improve its satellite infrastructure and ensure that China does not come to dominate near earth orbit. The potential consequences in a future conflict would be devestating...

That is true. The GPS satellite system is on the verge of collapse. The US needs to find a way to bill other countries for its use, because it is ridiculous that our nation created and employed the world's greatest navigation aid and no one else is helping us pay.
 
At the moment, everything hinges on getting cheap surface-to-orbit technology. Once you get into orbit, it's cheap and easy to do anything else. The launch costs all the money. We need to develop some sort of cheap, easy and fast launching system that can get large amounts of material into orbit, then we can worry about the rest.

The shuttle program was great for what it was, unfortunately what it was was 60s technology, strapping a shuttle onto a bomb. Sometimes, the bomb goes off.

Okay, I'm not an aeronautical engineer or a physicist, so this may be way off. However, I've wondered why a spacecraft can't be built that takes off like a normal airplane. It could take off and use normal lift from air just like a supersonic plane to get as high as possible in the atmosphere. Then it has rocket power to blast the remainder of the way into space. Is this feasible? After all, the space shuttles landed like airplanes. Is is possible for something to take off like a plane and get into outer space and then return like a plane?
 
Okay, I'm not an aeronautical engineer or a physicist, so this may be way off. However, I've wondered why a spacecraft can't be built that takes off like a normal airplane. It could take off and use normal lift from air just like a supersonic plane to get as high as possible in the atmosphere. Then it has rocket power to blast the remainder of the way into space. Is this feasible? After all, the space shuttles landed like airplanes. Is is possible for something to take off like a plane and get into outer space and then return like a plane?

The highest a jet can fly is still far too low for this. The shuttle would still have to carry a lot of fuel to reach orbit, making it far too heavy for the jet to carry. The 747 that carried the shuttle was almost overloaded by it's weight alone and it was transported empty.
 
I didn't see space elevators on the poll...

space_elevator1.gif


SpaceElevator.jpg


First elevators, then space trains... I mean come on... it just sounds cool... space train...
 
I voted we send astronauts to Mars at least lets try to make it to another planet then from there we could consentrate on going further into this universe perhaps eventualy another solar system or even anoter galaxy.

One thing for sure if there was anything on the moon we would have found it by now and you can only look at pictures so long till you want to go there and see for yourself.

It may sound corny but to put it simple "SPACE IS MANKINDS NEW FRONTIER":peace
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that we've had our last Space Shuttle launch, where should NASA focus its energies?

I dont' feel they should continue anything under 'Nasa' - - if they're not able to explore space then what's the point of them even being there? . . maybe keep a portion up and running for preservation of technology - and even to futher some earth-bound related research for other applications. but I don't see why other organizations and branches who are designated to cover land/sea/air can't do this already.
 
So let me see if I get this straight, you can justify the massive air conditioning budget based off of the false hope that we will be dependent on foreign oil a few decades from now? Meanwhile, we could spend a fraction of the military budget that would help the military with defense systems, equipment, gear, help the private sector to find and innovate on base ideas, and possibly, just possibly, find a totally new energy source through our explorations.

I understand... but budget cuts are needed. When people are going bankrupt and unemployment in some areas is 12-15%, there are other concerns. Our species does not have unlimited material access and continuing the space program under the mere hope that we will find a new energy source + an efficient way to implement it on earth is hypothetical. I'd rather we deal with what is now and what is known.

Fact of the matter is, NASA is an incredibly important part of America, and it helped make America pre-WWII. If not for NASA you likely would not have the object you inject your opinion on. If not for NASA we would not have technologies that have also been used to discover deep sea oil here on Earth. NASA is a bet sure, but it is a bet that most Americans would be willing to take. Whatever happened to manifest destiny?

I acknowledge all that... but that doesn't mean NASA is entitled to exist or that we should remain attached to it. There are plenty of other institutions working in the U.S. on scientific research. Our genius won't be hampered by the temporary absence of NASA.

Make no mistake... the loss of NASA is due to our nation's loss of priorities. If want scientific achievement and a high technology society, then we need more material equity.

Blame Wall Street. They are the reason for all of this, and our crooked congress that abets them.
 
Look, if the whole idea of privatizing space exploration is to get more eyes looking at it and more money invested in it, engaging the Muslim world and helping them get a seat at the table is a legitimate space policy goal. Imagine the extravagant building projects in Dubai, and now imagine them in space. Imagine OPEC going all-in to help us build solar panels and microwave emitters on the moon. Hell, imagine a generation of Muslim kids all over the world growing up with Muslim astronauts to look up to instead of radical clerics and martyrs.

Should it be NASA's top priority? No, of course not. But helping Muslims figure out which direction to pray to on the ISS is a small investment with the potential for a big payoff.

No offense Korimyr, but what a pipe dream.

Space has always been reserved for the richest nations, and our elite institutions. The implication that other societies are backward because they do not have what we have or do not do what we do is the continual colonial assertion of our times. It's one of the reasons why the Middle Eastern world hates us. We invade them and force democracy and our consumer economy on them, as if those things are advancements.

All of the things you mention, like Martian cololines and platforms on Venus... do you think that's really going to happen as long as we have a fossil fuel economy, unhealthy populations, severe class and income disparities, and the military-industrial complex creating new wars almost yearly?

Our society is not focused enough on supporting the intellectual health of its population. The way health care and education are continually seeing major cuts, along with the neo-con dominance in the western governments pushing for wars and social restrictions... we would not see the kind of advancements you are talking about for hundreds of years.

As an aside... we could probably advance just as much if we invested in oceanic research. We know so little about the ocean, and the technology needed to go to the deep seas is comparable to what is needed in outer space. At least then we could be learning about our own planet at the same time.
 
:peace
No offense Korimyr, but what a pipe dream.

Space has always been reserved for the richest nations, and our elite institutions. The implication that other societies are backward because they do not have what we have or do not do what we do is the continual colonial assertion of our times. It's one of the reasons why the Middle Eastern world hates us. We invade them and force democracy and our consumer economy on them, as if those things are advancements.

All of the things you mention, like Martian cololines and platforms on Venus... do you think that's really going to happen as long as we have a fossil fuel economy, unhealthy populations, severe class and income disparities, and the military-industrial complex creating new wars almost yearly?

Our society is not focused enough on supporting the intellectual health of its population. The way health care and education are continually seeing major cuts, along with the neo-con dominance in the western governments pushing for wars and social restrictions... we would not see the kind of advancements you are talking about for hundreds of years.

As an aside... we could probably advance just as much if we invested in oceanic research. We know so little about the ocean, and the technology needed to go to the deep seas is comparable to what is needed in outer space. At least then we could be learning about our own planet at the same time.

Excuse me but if you look at history, a lot of public use was at one time reserved for the rich or rich nation or elite institions.

Everything from cars {once considered a rich man's folly} right up to computers {once either for the very rich or the government}
Most appliances at one time were too rich for even the middle class let alone a simi poor poster like me.

Every time a new product hits the market sooner or later the price goes down to at least a manageable situation for more people to purchase.
The more money is spent the more profits for the rich nations, the rich or the elite institutions.:peace
 
I think NASA should be privatized. Then satellites and commercial space travel.

If it is privatized and some scientist comes up with a better idea he would have to go to the private company that controls satellites and space travel.

Working for a private company instead of a public service.

In a public service you could invent and apply for a patent.
In a private service everything you invent belongs to the private company.:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom