• 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
Kal'Stang said:
I'd vote on the poll but you can't choose more than one. So will just state do all those choices except scrapping NASA. NASA is one of the VERY FEW government programs that has actually turned a profit and helped mankind in a positive way.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about this, so double check me, but I think NASA sells things they invite for very cheap for other people to produce. I toured the physics lab at Kennedy Space Center, Florida earlier this year and the scientists there showed us plenty of things they had invented and then their commercial uses. If I remember correctly, he said that they sell licenses to their products relatively cheap. It would be interesting to see how much that is. Maybe they could make more money and be less of a supposed burden on America if they increase the cost or require some sort of commission?
 
I would remove NASA from the Federal budget and make it a donations only enterprise. I feel many other items should be removed and be volunteer spending only. How hard would it to have a few check boxes on your tax forms to voluntary donate taxes into these fields.
 
Mars to Stay. If we don't leave this planet-- and soon-- then we are fated to extinction on this planet.

We should also look into aerostat colonies in the upper atmosphere of Venus.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Mars to Stay. If we don't leave this planet-- and soon-- then we are fated to extinction on this planet.

We should also look into aerostat colonies in the upper atmosphere of Venus.
Click to expand...

The only way I could see that being successful is if we do what the British did a long time ago with their criminals in the 18th and 19th century. I do not think normal people would want a one way trip to mars.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I could be wrong about this, so double check me, but I think NASA sells things they invite for very cheap for other people to produce. I toured the physics lab at Kennedy Space Center, Florida earlier this year and the scientists there showed us plenty of things they had invented and then their commercial uses. If I remember correctly, he said that they sell licenses to their products relatively cheap. It would be interesting to see how much that is. Maybe they could make more money and be less of a supposed burden on America if they increase the cost or require some sort of commission?
Click to expand...

They actually do end up using the technologies in other areas. A HUGE example of this is computers. Computer technology advanced fairly quickly thanks to space exploration.
 
jamesrage said:
The only way I could see that being successful is if we do what the British did a long time ago with their criminals in the 18th and 19th century. I do not think normal people would want a one way trip to mars.
Click to expand...

On the contrary I think we could find plenty of people that wouldn't mind being the president of an entire planet lol. I think it is a great idea and I have not actually ever heard of this, now I am very interested.
 
JohnWOlin said:
They actually do end up using the technologies in other areas. A HUGE example of this is computers. Computer technology advanced fairly quickly thanks to space exploration.
Click to expand...

I know they use the technologies in other areas. That was not my point whatsoever. I am talking about selling these ideas. Computers ARE HUGE!!! If you add a few extra dollars to each product NASA's research helped make and then give that money to help continue NASA's research they may not be in as much trouble as they are. You know how actors get royalties whenever their shows or movies are shown? Why not use that same concept to have a HUGE increase in revenue for NASA.
 
jamesrage said:
IN humanity's whole history how many have hit earth that were actually devastating? Is almost 20 billion dollars a year worth this? I could be wrong but this seems to be in the ballpark of buying alien abduction insurance, sure aliens could abduct your for some strange unknown reason but the odds are not high enough to justify spending the money on it.
Click to expand...

While it didn't devestate the whole of Earth it certainly caused quite a bit of damage none the less.

Tunguska Event 1908

The spectacle that confronted Kulik as he stood on a ridge overlooking the devastated area was overwhelming. To the explorers' surprise, no crater was to be found. There was instead around ground zero a vast zone (8 kilometers [5 mi] across) of trees scorched and devoid of branches, but standing upright. Those farther away had been partly scorched and knocked down in a direction away from the centre. Much later, in the 1960s, it was established that the zone of leveled forest occupied an area of some 2,150 square kilometres (830 sq mi), its shape resembling a gigantic spread-eagled butterfly with a “wingspan” of 70 kilometres (43 mi) and a “body length” of 55 kilometres (34 mi).[21] Upon closer examination, Kulik located holes which he erroneously concluded were meteorite holes; however, he did not have the means at this time to excavate the holes.
Click to expand...

And it didn't even hit the Earth. Just exploded a few miles above land.

Yeah, chances may be one in a million. But that 1 could be enough to make us go the way of the dinosaurs. So what do you think? 20 billion dollars/yr to potentially keep 6+ billion people alive? I'd say its worth it.
 
jamesrage said:
The only way I could see that being successful is if we do what the British did a long time ago with their criminals in the 18th and 19th century. I do not think normal people would want a one way trip to mars.
Click to expand...

I sure as hell would. My biggest dream is to go into space and to another planet. Not likely going to happen..but I would jump at a chance to in a heartbeat.
 
JohnWOlin said:
On the contrary I think we could find plenty of people that wouldn't mind being the president of an entire planet lol. I think it is a great idea and I have not actually ever heard of this, now I am very interested.
Click to expand...

What good is being president if you don't have anything?
 
Kal'Stang said:
While it didn't devestate the whole of Earth it certainly caused quite a bit of damage none the less.

Tunguska Event 1908



And it didn't even hit the Earth. Just exploded a few miles above land.

Yeah, chances may be one in a million. But that 1 could be enough to make us go the way of the dinosaurs. So what do you think? 20 billion dollars/yr to potentially keep 6+ billion people alive? I'd say its worth it.
Click to expand...

If there was something actually large enough to cause a mass extinction and not just burn up or explode in the atmosphere like almost all asteroids do, would we have the ability to actually do something about it?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I sure as hell would. My biggest dream is to go into space and to another planet. Not likely going to happen..but I would jump at a chance to in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


I have a dream of visiting another planet, not permanently staying there.
 
jamesrage said:
If there was something actually large enough to cause a mass extinction and not just burn up or explode in the atmosphere like almost all asteroids do, would we have the ability to actually do something about it?
Click to expand...

Not without funding NASA. That is the point. They are working on it. It isn't a simple solution but if you cut funding, there is no way they can find a solution to this.
 
jamesrage said:
What good is being president if you don't have anything?
Click to expand...

There are lots of resources on Mars. Sure hardly any water to speak of (just the polar caps) and no air or trees or animals. But there are resources that could benefit humanity. Here's more than like just a few of the resources we've been able to identify on Mars...

Wiki
 
jamesrage said:
If there was something actually large enough to cause a mass extinction and not just burn up or explode in the atmosphere like almost all asteroids do, would we have the ability to actually do something about it?
Click to expand...

Many believe that we can stop an extinction event astroid. But I would imagine that it would depend on the size of it too. For example..doubt we could stop something the size the moon. But I bet we could stop something a few miles across. I know that we could stop something 500 meters across...which if just going 17km/hr at a 90 degree angle would be enough to make a 13km crater....nvm the surrounding damage and all the dirt/dust thrown into the air and cost in lives.

Impact Calculator
 
jamesrage said:
I have a dream of visiting another planet, not permanently staying there.
Click to expand...

I'd stay. Don't get me wrong, I love our planet. But its not enough to get me to stay here if there was a chance to explore another planet.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'd vote on the poll but you can't choose more than one. So will just state do all those choices except scrapping NASA. NASA is one of the VERY FEW government programs that has actually turned a profit and helped mankind in a positive way.
Click to expand...

Actually, the poll's set up to allow you to vote for more than one thing.
 
jamesrage said:
The only way I could see that being successful is if we do what the British did a long time ago with their criminals in the 18th and 19th century. I do not think normal people would want a one way trip to mars.
Click to expand...

Well, I know I ain't normal, but write my ticket and I am gone.
 
jamesrage said:
The only way I could see that being successful is if we do what the British did a long time ago with their criminals in the 18th and 19th century. I do not think normal people would want a one way trip to mars.
Click to expand...

But then, it's pretty cool what prison colonies can achieve, and have lots of people wanting to immigrate after a few years. :mrgreen:
 
Baralis said:
I would remove NASA from the Federal budget and make it a donations only enterprise. I feel many other items should be removed and be volunteer spending only. How hard would it to have a few check boxes on your tax forms to voluntary donate taxes into these fields.
Click to expand...

There is no way NASA could get by only on donations. Especially when you factor in all the safety checks they have to do, particularly for manned missions into space.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I could be wrong about this, so double check me, but I think NASA sells things they invite for very cheap for other people to produce. I toured the physics lab at Kennedy Space Center, Florida earlier this year and the scientists there showed us plenty of things they had invented and then their commercial uses. If I remember correctly, he said that they sell licenses to their products relatively cheap. It would be interesting to see how much that is. Maybe they could make more money and be less of a supposed burden on America if they increase the cost or require some sort of commission?
Click to expand...

Actually, because NASA technology is developed by the government with taxpayer money, I believe that any technology they invent is in the public domain. So whenever NASA invents something it is allowed to be further developed by private businesses for commercial consumers.

This is one reason why we have cordless power tools, among other consumer goods.
 
Luna Tick said:
Now that we've had our last Space Shuttle launch, where should NASA focus its energies?
Click to expand...

Manned probe of Uranus?

Ok...someone had to say it...

As I understand it there was some talk of H3 resources on the moon that could eventually be used as a viable and powerful fuel source. I think that might be a valid NASA purpose. Also working on an entry/re-entry space vehicle that didnt require the masive effort that every shuttle launch takes. It would be nice to clean up the space junk floating around from dead satellites. I dont know how we can justify spending billions of taxpayer dollars 'just' to continue to explore space. We have all we can handle dealing with the planet and atmosphere we currently occupy.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
I think NASA should focus upon improving the ISS.

death_star.jpg
Click to expand...

That'll fix those Chinese suckers!!! We'll teach them to shoot down a satellite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom