View Poll Results: Should the US keep one shuttle operational till the next generation?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! Keep one operational

    21 60.00%
  • No! Get rid of all of them

    12 34.29%
  • Other / I dont know

    2 5.71%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    They are? Tell me...when was the last time the US was invaded?
    nearly every other country in the entire world has been able to repel invasions with a 1000x less military budget than the US. The efficiency of a govt in managing its country's physical security is gauged by what it can accomplish per dollar spent.

    So after spending $10 trillion on "defense", being able to deter invasions is nothing to scream about. But since the US govt, after spending approximately that amount since 1980, cannot even stop a bunch of flight school flunkies from piloting a commercial airliner into a major, large financial building (i. e. by scrambling fighters in time, by heeding 75+ warnings of the attacks beforehand), there's no nice way to say it: when it comes to defense, it sucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Really? Then what happened during the civil wars days? Civil rights days? 9/11 reaction? I could name lots of other things but whats the use? I've got a feeling that it won't matter to you.
    What happened in the Civil Wars days is irrelevant because we don't live in that world anymore.

    What's relevant is the 21st Century world, where, after 9/11, the US spent nearly 10 years and another trillion dollars or so in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a Third World organization--the Taliban. When any institution, army, etc., after spending a trillion dollars, cannot defeat such a primitive fighting force--one with a 100,000x smaller military budget--it sucks, period.

    In the end, it's very simple: people's money should not be wasted on institutions that have a track record of using that money inefficiency. And on that criteria, the US govt is (as described above) second to none.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    LMAO really? Then who do you think should provide for the common defense of America? Private corporations? Yeah, I can really see that working out to everyones benefits.

    CEO of a corporation in Alaska: If you want us to protect you then you have to pay us $1000 dollars per month or we will ignore any pleas for help!"
    Great !

    Sure sounds alot better than Uncle Sam's deal: "if you want us to protect you, you have to pay us $10 billion per month, and then maybe we'll be able to stop a bunch of flight school flunkies or teens with explosives in their underwear."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Its funny...you are the one hollering about corporations controlling the government through lobbying (something which you yourself can do also mind you) to the detriment of everyone else and yet you are calling for the government to get out of the space program and to let the corporations do it.
    I'm all for the private sector doing whatever it wants as long it doesn't steal money from the public via taxes, for the purpose of dumping it in its own pocket (i. e. subsidies) or to advance it's agenda.

    If a corporation/private entity wants to spend money on something, fine--but it must do it on its own dime, or from voluntary contributions, not by forcibly taking money from me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    So do you think that other countries will allow the US to put land lines and towers on thier soil?
    Practically every other country on Earth already has towers on their own soil--towers that can be used to triangulate coordinates (i. e. GPS) provided they work w/standard protocols, and today, they all do (GSM, CDMA, hello?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Also what good is an undersea cable or a tower going to be for a ship in the middle of the ocean? Towers only reach so far and cables that run a couple miles deep below the ocean are not accessible to ships.
    Ships at sea have been able to navigate themselves for years without GPS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You are also forgetting that a satellite is a hell of a lot harder for terrorists to attack than a tower or land line.
    It's also alot cheaper to simply rebuild the tower after the attack and/or operate redundant towers than maintaining satellites in orbit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You also forget that those satellites also look for and detect any possible threat to the US...such as nuclear missiles heading in our direction.
    And, after detecting the nuclear missile, can it stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You obviously have no idea what NEO's are. NEO's are about more than just Earth orbit junk that we put up there, most of which is harmless. NEO's are also about astroids and comets that have the possibility of impacting Earth. Some of those NEO's are out as far as Pluto. What company or private individual is going to spend the money required to map all those astroids just to make sure that they are not a threat to this world? Much less figure out a viable way of getting rid of any that do threaten the world?
    Right, and the US govt, after spending $10 trillion on defense, still has no defense against NEOs.

    I would think a private corporation, funded from private donations, could do a lot better than that.
    Last edited by solletica; 07-21-11 at 08:35 PM.

  2. #22
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    nearly every other country in the entire world has been able to repel invasions with a 1000x less military budget than the US. The efficiency of a govt in managing its country's physical security is gauged by what it can accomplish per dollar spent.

    So after spending $10 trillion on "defense", being able to deter invasions is nothing to scream about. But since the US govt, after spending approximately that amount since 1980, cannot even stop a bunch of flight school flunkies from piloting a commercial airliner into a major, large financial building (i. e. by scrambling fighters in time, by heeding 75+ warnings of the attacks beforehand), there's no nice way to say it: when it comes to defense, it sucks.



    What happened in the Civil Wars days is irrelevant because we don't live in that world anymore.

    What's relevant is the 21st Century world, where, after 9/11, the US spent nearly 10 years and another trillion dollars or so in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a Third World organization--the Taliban. When any institution, army, etc., after spending a trillion dollars, cannot defeat such a primitive fighting force--one with a 100,000x smaller military budget--it sucks, period.

    In the end, it's very simple: people's money should not be wasted on institutions that have a track record of using that money inefficiency. And on that criteria, the US govt is (as described above) second to none.



    Great !

    Sure sounds alot better than Uncle Sam's deal: "if you want us to protect you, you have to pay us $10 billion per month, and then maybe we'll be able to stop a bunch of flight school flunkies or teens with explosives in their underwear."



    I'm all for the private sector doing whatever it wants as long it doesn't steal money from the public via taxes, for the purpose of dumping it in its own pocket (i. e. subsidies) or to advance it's agenda.

    If a corporation/private entity wants to spend money on something, fine--but it must do it on its own dime, or from voluntary contributions, not by forcibly taking money from me.



    Practically every other country on Earth already has towers on their own soil--towers that can be used to triangulate coordinates (i. e. GPS) provided they work w/standard protocols, and today, they all do (GSM, CDMA, hello?)



    Ships at sea have been able to navigate themselves for years without GPS.



    It's also alot cheaper to simply rebuild the tower after the attack and/or operate redundant towers than maintaining satellites in orbit.



    And, after detecting the nuclear missile, can it stop it?



    Right, and the US govt, after spending $10 trillion on defense, still has no defense against NEOs.

    I would think a private corporation, funded from private donations, could do a lot better than that.
    Agreed 100 percent with your view of the military: it's embarrassingly inefficient and completely unequipped to deal with modern threats. With that said, that doesn't mean that government militaries necessarily suck, just that this one does. The answer is not privatization. I'm not willing to give a bunch of tanks and jet fighters to organizations who's only goal is making money. I can think of one or two ways that might end badly.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The shuttle programs have been beneficial to science. I have said before that NASA should have and be funded with specific mission goals. However it makes no sense to abandon the program outright and render the shuttles useless.

    As for the NASA contribution to the 14.5 trillion dollar debt and climbing...1-its a drop in the bucket and 2-its only a waste if it accomplished nothing. Few scientists would agree with your position on that.
    Whenever it wanted to transport a person in space, NASA could've accomplished that w/cheaper spacecraft, like the Progress or Soyuz craft used by the Russians. AS for the need for large cargo, that could've been done w/an unmanned vehicle piloted remotely.

    In fact, the only reason the US govt is finally scrapping the shuttle program is because it finally came to the (above) realization.

  4. #24
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Should the United States always keep one shuttle mothballed but fully operational and updated until we have another way into orbit?
    We should seek to spur private investment into space as much as possible and hopefully get this industry as a normal part of the economy. It would be a huge boom.

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Agreed 100 percent with your view of the military: it's embarrassingly inefficient and completely unequipped to deal with modern threats. With that said, that doesn't mean that government militaries necessarily suck, just that this one does. The answer is not privatization. I'm not willing to give a bunch of tanks and jet fighters to organizations who's only goal is making money. I can think of one or two ways that might end badly.
    To be fair, the US govt and the private sector are not even separate entities. In reality, powerful organizations within the private sector just rent the US govt for the sole purpose of stealing money from the public (via taxes) to advance their own agenda or merely fatten itself.

    The essence of the problem is not that governments are always worse than private firms--they are merely institutions, like their private counterparts.

    The problem is that in the good 'ol USA, the government is not hired for specific projects/services voluntarily by the people, based on what the people believe is a sensible use of their money.

    Rather, Uncle Sam just steals money from the people to do its own thing, and that's the root of all the inefficiencies.
    Last edited by solletica; 07-21-11 at 08:58 PM.

  6. #26
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    To be fair, the US govt and the private sector are not even separate entities. In reality, powerful organizations within the private sector just rent the US govt for the sole purpose of stealing money from the public (via taxes) to advance their own agenda or merely fatten itself.

    The essence of the problem is not that governments are always worse than private firms--they are merely institutions, like their private counterparts.

    The problem is that in the good 'ol USA, the government is not hired for specific projects/services voluntarily by the people, based on what the people believe is a sensible use of their money.

    Rather, Uncle Sam just steals money from the people to do its own thing, and that's the root of all the inefficiencies.
    Well, I sure can't disagree with that.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  7. #27
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    We shouldn't have stopped the program until we had a replacement in place.
    Actually, I think we had stopped the program when we should have, but I think we should have had a replacement program already in place by now.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  8. #28
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    Move on is putting it mildly. There is no real space exploration until some sort of faster-than-light transport system (i. e. warp drive, teleportation) has been developed.

    IMHO, money and time would be better spent on physicists working on a theoretical breakthrough to allow that instead of just hauling more stuff into low earth orbit or into the solar system.
    I disagree. Space exploration is everything NASA has done so far. To ignore and cancel NASA would be short sighted. NASAs funding should be doubled.

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    I disagree. Space exploration is everything NASA has done so far. To ignore and cancel NASA would be short sighted. NASAs funding should be doubled.
    If you would like to double NASA's funding, you're welcome to write your own checks to that agency, or wire money from your account to NASA's account to fulfill that funding goal, and tell your friends to do the same.

    Just as long as it keeps its hands off my stash until I want to fund something it does.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    You're gonna be waiting a long time then, since FTL travel is impossible outside of Star Trek.
    With NASA wasting taxpayer money just putting stuff into low Earth orbit, it'll never be possible. Many physicists would be glad to work on FTL research if they were paid handsomely for it, i. e. if the money used to launch shuttles into orbit instead went to their pockets.

    Sure, it'll take a long time. I'm estimating at least 220 years before the first teleportation or warp drive, and at least 60 years for the theoretical breakthrough to allow it (assuming the physicists are getting the funding they want).

    But that commitment must be made now, and preferably, via private donations (made possible by reduced taxes from de-funding NASA). I don't believe in stealing money from others to sponsor my own agenda.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •