• 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!

Space programs and their support among the population [W:91]

Your stance on space programs

  • I'm an European and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm Russian and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Until the U.S government decides to stop trying to militarize space, I'm greatly opposed to space programs. Though, space colonization would certainly be one of the greatest triumphs of our species.
 
Until the U.S government decides to stop trying to militarize space, I'm greatly opposed to space programs. Though, space colonization would certainly be one of the greatest triumphs of our species.

Militarize space? Got any proof that this is happening?
 
Militarize space? Got any proof that this is happening?
The Star Wars program in past years. Also, a quote from Donald Rumsfeld. “the U.S. government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.”
 
The Star Wars program in past years. Also, a quote from Donald Rumsfeld. “the U.S. government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.”

Umm...none of that was about militarizing space. That was about defending our country. When you militarize something you attempt to take full control of it. This has not been done.

Oh and btw...the Star Wars program was shut down a couple of decades ago.
 
Regarding militarizing space...

In a way I think it might help - a "space military arms race" might spark many an innovation.

However the obvious issue is that then there would be weapons in space (besides the natural ones) which could be dropped on the planet.
 
Exploitation of what though? There are no resources to use. There isn't anything useful in space.

.



I'm stunned that someone actually said this.

It is almost as ludicrous as something from the Flat Earth Society.
 
Based on known terrestrial reserves and growing consumption in developing countries, there is speculation that key elements needed for modern industry, including antimony, zinc, tin, silver, lead, indium, gold, and copper, could be exhausted on Earth within 50–60 years.[2] In response, it has been suggested that platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may be mined and sent to Earth for profit, used to build solar-power satellites and space habitats,[3][4] and water processed from ice to refuel orbiting propellant depots.[5][6][7]

In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten mined from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.[8][


Asteroid mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://inphobe.blogspot.com/2009/07/mining-saturns-rings.html
 
Umm...none of that was about militarizing space. That was about defending our country. When you militarize something you attempt to take full control of it. This has not been done.

Oh and btw...the Star Wars program was shut down a couple of decades ago.
I'm aware it was shut down, however further operations continue. Defending the country from what, China's space weaponization program? No other country in the world invests a marginally comparable amount into space weapons.
 
I'm aware it was shut down, however further operations continue. Defending the country from what, China's space weaponization program? No other country in the world invests a marginally comparable amount into space weapons.
Frankly it'd be nice to have a few space-capable weapons on the off chance that hostile aliens show up.

We might at least be able to hurt them a bit. Scratch the paint as it were.
 
I'm aware it was shut down, however further operations continue. Defending the country from what, China's space weaponization program? No other country in the world invests a marginally comparable amount into space weapons.


Good. We should maintain a large margin of superiority in space-based weapons. :)
 
Space has had a certain amount of militarization. Russia has experimented with Hunter-Killer satellites. The US has developed a missile (launchable from an F-15 at high altitude) that can knock down satellites. China apparently can knock down satellites. Recently, the US had an out-of-control satellite that needed to be destroyed before reentry. We modified an SM-3 in just a few weeks and destroyed the rogue system in orbit. So space weapons are already available, but they are relegated, so far, to just destroying satellites. This is no surprise because satellites can be a military asset as "eyes in the sky." The next evolution is logical, which is to "blind" that military asset. So far, "space militarization" is of no danger to targets on the ground...for now.
 
Space has had a certain amount of militarization. Russia has experimented with Hunter-Killer satellites. The US has developed a missile (launchable from an F-15 at high altitude) that can knock down satellites. China apparently can knock down satellites. Recently, the US had an out-of-control satellite that needed to be destroyed before reentry. We modified an SM-3 in just a few weeks and destroyed the rogue system in orbit. So space weapons are already available, but they are relegated, so far, to just destroying satellites. This is no surprise because satellites can be a military asset as "eyes in the sky." The next evolution is logical, which is to "blind" that military asset. So far, "space militarization" is of no danger to targets on the ground...for now.
But in theory, you could probably de-orbit a satellite so that it would impact somewhere near a ground target.

Crude and probably wildly inaccurate without purpose-designed projectiles, but...
 
But there is evidence that it CAN happen. Not all dreams are spun out of thin air.



1: 19 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to every other program that the government has. Again, how much does the military spend per year? On welfare?

2: You say that NASA has not accomplished anything for its primary mission...do you know what that primary mission actually is? Here, read about it...NASA And as I told the other guy awhile ago...Did you really think that the things that NASA wants to do was simple? That we'd be living on other planets in just 60 some odd years? The endeavor to get into space is not a short term thing. Its long term. Very long term. Although I will admit that if NASA got 1/4 of what the military alone gets we'd probably be on Mars by now.



Here ya go...

View attachment 67140630

Everything on that table which is found naturally here on Earth is found in space...very useful stuff that we can use wouldn't you say?



Umm...the government constantly foots the bill to corporations for R&D reasearch also. The government gives out billions of dollars, (more than what NASA gets) to corporations for R&D every single year. And really, if NASA is not cost effective then why is it that for every dollar spent on NASA the economy gains $8? Can you explain that?

I'm going to ignore much of your post here because I hope the following will clear some things up...



First: Are you sure that those things would have been invented without thinking about and figuring out ways to go into space?

As for my claim, sorry, can't remember where I saw that but you can look at this....

Wiki ~ NASA funding



Now take a look at that last sentence. NASA accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in 2002 alone. Including 23.5 billion in employee earnings. Yet NASA only received 14 billion dollars. You cut NASA out of the picture and what is going to happen to all those jobs? What is it going to do to the economy?

I'm stunned that someone actually said this.

It is almost as ludicrous as something from the Flat Earth Society.

You're not serious, are you?

To the users that addressed my statement there is nothing useful in space: If you read my follow on comments, I clarified the meaning of it. It doesn't matter if the moon is made of gold. It is not cost effective for us to go and get the gold. Therefore, it is useless. Kal showed me that I hadn't illustrated my point well with his initial response. I am aware that there are useful resources in space. But they are only useful if you spend less money to get them than you would take in by getting them.

To the other points, the economics of the space program are negligible ie jobs would go to the private industry (Space X, etc), the products made (if they are really that necessary) will be researched and created by other gov't/private industry entities, and the 1 for 8 dollar argument would be negligible once in the hands of the private market as they would increase that margin. Also, to the 1 for 8 dollar point, why do we keep giving them money? If they are such a profitable organization, shouldn't they be able to fund themselves? The fact of the matter is, NASA can massively cut it's budget just like every other gov't entity can. We won't massively cut it because then the politician(s) responsible for it will be labeled as "anti-science" "anti-NASA", etc.
This entire debate is whether the NASA program is a priority. To that point, I say a hearty no. Now, as I've said numerous times, in a different economic and world climate I would say yes lets get into space as fast as possible. But when you're running up a now 16 trillion plus debt, frivolous spending (including massive military spending, massive foreign aid, etc) needs to be cut or pared down. NASA should be pared down to satellite management/repair. That's it. There is no reason for our country to spend billions of dollars for a mission to mars when we can't even get pot holes plugged in the interstate here. This argument is about emotion more than substance as most everyone on this thread is arguing for their grandfather's now what seems mythical NASA that got to the moon and was so glorious in it's heyday. Well, the heyday's over. We are in extremely tough times. "The worst since the great depression" so I've been told for the last 4 years. If that's the case, shouldn't we be cutting the spending and therefore the taxes of hard working Americans? Yeah, we should. But instead, people such as yourselves want to see cool pictures from Mars. That doesn't sit well with me.
 
There was a ~25min video earlier in the thread wherein the person talking seemed to be of the opinion that a grand and inspiring goal/mission for NASA would invigorate the economy - give people something to be proud of/work towards, or something.


Now, that obviously leaves the territory of easily quantifiable numbers and enters that of emotions and such. However emotion is a key part of humans, thus...


Well it seemed to make some sense to me at least.
 
To the other points, the economics of the space program are negligible ie jobs would go to the private industry (Space X, etc), the products made (if they are really that necessary) will be researched and created by other gov't/private industry entities, and the 1 for 8 dollar argument would be negligible once in the hands of the private market as they would increase that margin. Also, to the 1 for 8 dollar point, why do we keep giving them money? If they are such a profitable organization, shouldn't they be able to fund themselves? The fact of the matter is, NASA can massively cut it's budget just like every other gov't entity can. We won't massively cut it because then the politician(s) responsible for it will be labeled as "anti-science" "anti-NASA", etc.

Herein we see the advantage of NASA. The financial risks of exploring/industrializing space are far too high for private industry to go at it alone. Their bottom line is profit after all. So it has always required governments to be the primary investor in large, risky ventures. Once government opened the door, and established the exact nature of the risks, and how to overcome them, private enterprise could then proceed apace with full knowledge of what they were facing, and therefore how to mitigate the risk. Without government entities, like NASA, private companies could never reap the rewards of highly profitable new frontiers. THAT is why NASA and ESA are important.
 
Herein we see the advantage of NASA. The financial risks of exploring/industrializing space are far too high for private industry to go at it alone. Their bottom line is profit after all. So it has always required governments to be the primary investor in large, risky ventures. Once government opened the door, and established the exact nature of the risks, and how to overcome them, private enterprise could then proceed apace with full knowledge of what they were facing, and therefore how to mitigate the risk. Without government entities, like NASA, private companies could never reap the rewards of highly profitable new frontiers. THAT is why NASA and ESA are important.
Let me fix that last sentence for you. THAT is why NASA and ESA were important.
 
Let me fix that last sentence for you. THAT is why NASA and ESA were important.
Why not so anymore?

Has anyone sent a manned mission to Mars or any other celestial object other than the moon? And weren't the moon landings decades ago?


Might it not be necessary for NASA and ESA to pioneer the methods necessary to do such things, so that private companies know what to expect?
 
:shock: :blink: The same resources that are on this planet are on other planets also. You seem to forget that other planets are made from the same things that this planet is made from. Some planets may lack some things yes, but to claim that there are no resources on other planets? That is just a WOW moment.



And yet for every dollar that NASA spends the US economy recieves $8. What other government program do you know of that does that?

A group of billionaires and former NASA scientists is now unveiling the first asteroid mining company in history. They claim they will "add trillions of dollars to the global GDP" and "help ensure humanity's prosperity" by mining asteroids for rare metals like gold and platinum.

Their objective is to "harness resources from passing-by asteroids". And they claim they are going to launch their first space prospecting ships within 24 months!.....snip~

Agreed and that is why they are going to focus on near earth Asteroids, First!
 
I understand that manned space missions are more expensive. Therefore I propose a womanned one.
 
To the users that addressed my statement there is nothing useful in space: If you read my follow on comments, I clarified the meaning of it. It doesn't matter if the moon is made of gold. It is not cost effective for us to go and get the gold. Therefore, it is useless. Kal showed me that I hadn't illustrated my point well with his initial response. I am aware that there are useful resources in space. But they are only useful if you spend less money to get them than you would take in by getting them.

Of course they are cost prohibitive right now. And they always will be unless we develop cheaper ways to do this. But we will never develop those ways if we shut everything down due to the cost right now.

To the other points, the economics of the space program are negligible ie jobs would go to the private industry (Space X, etc), the products made (if they are really that necessary) will be researched and created by other gov't/private industry entities, and the 1 for 8 dollar argument would be negligible once in the hands of the private market as they would increase that margin. Also, to the 1 for 8 dollar point, why do we keep giving them money? If they are such a profitable organization, shouldn't they be able to fund themselves? The fact of the matter is, NASA can massively cut it's budget just like every other gov't entity can. We won't massively cut it because then the politician(s) responsible for it will be labeled as "anti-science" "anti-NASA", etc.

Actually those jobs that NASA creates is not just in NASA itself. It is also created in the private sector. Indeed that is what that section of wiki was also talking about that I quoted you earlier.

And while NASA is profitable the government, including NASA is not out to make profit. All the extra money that NASA makes goes towards other government programs. You can blame Congress for that.

This entire debate is whether the NASA program is a priority. To that point, I say a hearty no. Now, as I've said numerous times, in a different economic and world climate I would say yes lets get into space as fast as possible. But when you're running up a now 16 trillion plus debt, frivolous spending (including massive military spending, massive foreign aid, etc) needs to be cut or pared down. NASA should be pared down to satellite management/repair. That's it. There is no reason for our country to spend billions of dollars for a mission to mars when we can't even get pot holes plugged in the interstate here. This argument is about emotion more than substance as most everyone on this thread is arguing for their grandfather's now what seems mythical NASA that got to the moon and was so glorious in it's heyday. Well, the heyday's over. We are in extremely tough times. "The worst since the great depression" so I've been told for the last 4 years. If that's the case, shouldn't we be cutting the spending and therefore the taxes of hard working Americans? Yeah, we should. But instead, people such as yourselves want to see cool pictures from Mars. That doesn't sit well with me.

But that is the thing. The US will ALWAYS be in debt. If you want to talk priorities then you should be taking from those things that cost the most and actually harm us first. Either by triming, shutting down or whatever. It is programs like military spending and welfare that should be cut long before NASA because they actually cause more harm than NASA ever has in its entire history in just a couple of years of their history.
 
Let me fix that last sentence for you. THAT is why NASA and ESA were important.

Still are important. There are materials that can be made in orbit that cannot easily be made in a gravity well. Space stations, supporting missions to the local asteroids and Mars, would include all sorts of manufacturing facilities that could likewise benefit industry on Earth. This would create jobs, the most reliable way to stimulate any economy, and create a whole plethora of new technological skill sets. The ripple effect of concerted space development would be felt through all the economies of countries that participate. And that's just the warmup.
 
Space exploration has been done to the extent that it needed to be done. At this point it should be a back burner, slow-grow for government, mostly related to national security and hard science only. Some of the slack is being absorbed by the private industry. It's just a big show-off thing at this point, some kids grew up wanting to have the ego of having been where few humans have gone, at the cost of billions, it's absurd now. You still see it entertainment, SPACE + COWBOYS, it's embarssing.

Compute should be where we invest in as a nation. Even just our broadband is way behind a number of other developed nations, and just getting further and further behind. Yet there is not a person here so ignorant as to not understand that compute is where 99% of the future of everything relevant to humanity will be found over the next centuries.

Space? Sure, but we'll send automated pilots that don't feel G forces and need to eat and piss or be trained...OR RETURN MISSIONS. No shuttle tragedy, no problem.

Military: They are already going gang busters with drones, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Everyone consumer/private: Our lives revolve around tech these days, from advances in health care and cheaper medicine, our communications, entertainment, productivity/work connectiveness, problem solving for any and all disciplines, etc., etc.

That's how I see it anyway. Not that I didn't support space exploration of the past, it was essential for national security and satellite, and to know our boundaries. We know it now, and the frontier is compute/AI.
 
....., and to know our boundaries. We know it now, and the frontier is compute/AI.

We haven't even begun to reach much less know our boundaries.

The only boundaries that there are are those that we set for ourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom