• 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 travel. Is it necessary? Do you support it?

Do you support the continuation of the US space programme?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 85.5%

  • No

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Only the continuation of the research

    Votes: 5 9.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Total voters
    55
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How much specialized engineering talent does it take to say "drill here for a change"? Like ya say, the government's agenda isn't necessarily what's best for the people.
Click to expand...

Drilling for more oil, here or anywhere else, just delays the inevitable. We need alteratives to most of our current energy sources, and we need to stop wasting energy wherever it comes from...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I do believe NASA paid for the development of the fuel cell.

They're also responsible for the development of the RTG, the radioisotope thermal generator, are they not?
Click to expand...

neither of which are available to the general public at a reasonable price, so they are not VIABLE.....
The sun is the source of considerable free energy, but we can't go out and buy one, can we?
 
Blackdog said:
They are not exaggerations at all. Give credit where credit is due. You are being intellectually dishonest here.



The only thing exaggerated here is your opinion. Without the work NASA did those items being worked on would not have gotten to were they are today, period. You cannot say the same.



Then again maybe not. Since you can't prove this, and I have already proved my point this amounts to your guess vs my facts.



More red-herring, nice.



So what? The benefits we get from NASA far outweigh the cost.

So far you have yet to post a single shred of evidence proving any point you have tried to make. Your argument amounts to opinion backed by fallacy. Wow, great argument. :roll:
Click to expand...

not wasting my time anymore with someone with no background in energy, physics, chemistry, power generation, etc. You read too much Popular Science/Mechanics, and not enough real college level texts...
Save me some time, rewrite your own post as tho I am saying the same things to you. It will be just as valid....
 
UtahBill said:
Drilling for more oil, here or anywhere else, just delays the inevitable.
Click to expand...

We've two trillion barrels of reserves in oil shale and two independent means of extracting that oil for less than $30 a barrel.

That gives us approximately 200 years of "delay".

Stable price.
Stable output.
Domestic internal currency flow.
Defunds terrorist tyrants in primitive places.

Works fine for me.
 
UtahBill said:
not wasting my time anymore with someone with no background in energy, physics, chemistry, power generation, etc. You read too much Popular Science/Mechanics, and not enough real college level texts...
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. Now I must have a degree in physics, chemistry etc to debate a subject even though my position is backed up by real evidence?

UtahBill said:
Save me some time, rewrite your own post as tho I am saying the same things to you. It will be just as valid....
Click to expand...

That has to be the lamest cop out I have ever heard on this board.

No trolling or ad-hom intended.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We've two trillion barrels of reserves in oil shale and two independent means of extracting that oil for less than $30 a barrel.
That gives us approximately 200 years of "delay".

Stable price.
Stable output.
Domestic internal currency flow.
Defunds terrorist tyrants in primitive places.

Works fine for me.
Click to expand...

So, why again is it that we are not doing what you suggest?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We've two trillion barrels of reserves in oil shale and two independent means of extracting that oil for less than $30 a barrel.

That gives us approximately 200 years of "delay".

Stable price.
Stable output.
Domestic internal currency flow.
Defunds terrorist tyrants in primitive places.

Works fine for me.
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
UtahBill said:
neither of which are available to the general public at a reasonable price, so they are not VIABLE.....
The sun is the source of considerable free energy, but we can't go out and buy one, can we?
Click to expand...

Free solar energy ain't worth much.

Generally, to make it useful, someone has to spend money to built a collector and processor to convert it into the form desired.

Also the bureaucratic asswipes at neither NASA nor the DOE are the people to supervise earth bound energy optimization, utilization, or conversion schemes. That's what private investors and the private free market are for.
 
UtahBill said:
So, why again is it that we are not doing what you suggest?
Click to expand...

People who think it is to dangers to the environment etc.

Does he also need a degree in science? :2wave:
 
UtahBill said:
So, why again is it that we are not doing what you suggest?
Click to expand...

The socialist collectivist politics of carbon, the mythical dream of the Alborites that we can heat our homes by holding hands and singing Kumbaya and other stupid schemes the government dreams up to keep the people in chains painted green.
 
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding. Now I must have a degree in physics, chemistry etc to debate a subject even though my position is backed up by real evidence?



That has to be the lamest cop out I have ever heard on this board.

No trolling or ad-hom intended.
Click to expand...

Where did you present any real evidence?
I suggested 2 that the link claimed more credit for than they can justify, and suggested googling those topics, and guess what? No valid response.
A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit.
Last time this came up on DP, someone actually suggested that TANG and VELCRO were invented by NASA....
what a joke....
 
Blackdog said:
People who think it is to dangers to the environment etc.

Does he also need a degree in science? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Gots me both nuclear power plant operating experience and training and gots myself a gen-u-wine engineering degree, too.
 
UtahBill said:
Where did you present any real evidence?
Click to expand...

Go back and actualy read what I posted and don't just gloss over it because it does not agree with you.

UtahBill said:
I suggested 2 that the link claimed more credit for than they can justify, and suggested googling those topics, and guess what? No valid response.
Click to expand...

The link did not claim credit for the discovery, it claimed credit for the improvements. Again more intellectual dishonesty.

UtahBill said:
A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit.
Click to expand...

"Memory foam, also known as temper foam, was developed under a NASA contract in the 1970s that set out to improve seat cushioning and crash protection for airline pilots and passengers. Memory foam has widespread commercial applications, in addition to the popular mattresses and pillows. For the latest Spinoff article, please visit: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ch_6.html."

"Barcodes were not invented by NASA. NASA developed a special type of barcode for inventory of space shuttle and other space system components that could endure harsh environments, but this should not be mistakened for the original barcode. Similarly, NASA was not the first to use quartz as a piezoelectric material for timekeeping. The first quartz clock dates back to 1927. However in the late 1960s, NASA partnered with a company to make a highly accurate quartz clock. This clock was on the market for a few years but is no longer available. Further, NASA did not invent the smoke detector. NASA’s connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project. The device was made commercially available by Honeywell. The consumer could use it to avoid “nuisance” alarms while cooking. Like the quartz clock, this device is no longer available." - http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm

"Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program." - http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm

From NASA's web site. It does not look like they are taking credit for anything they did not do.

UtahBill said:
Last time this came up on DP, someone actually suggested that TANG and VELCRO were invented by NASA....
what a joke....
Click to expand...

Shown above by NASA's own website they did not take credit for either.

All of that and still no degree in chemistry!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Gots me both nuclear power plant operating experience and training and gots myself a gen-u-wine engineering degree, too.
Click to expand...

Navy Nuke school, class of 66-1, and over a hundred credits at U of Idaho toward a Bacheor of technology degree, and an abiding interest in energy conservation since the Jimmy Carter days.
I maintain that since all the alternatives have issues, and those with the least issues are still a decade away, the govt. should be asking us to conserve, but they are not. Our govt seems to have more interest in keeping the OPEC nation's economies stable than our own....

As for private industry, I agree, they are the ones who should be pushing the envelope. But I remember well the days of the solar water heating industry.
It committed suicide as soon as the govt subsidies started going away.
They priced themselves out of business....
 
Blackdog said:
People who think it is to dangers to the environment etc.

Does he also need a degree in science? :2wave:
Click to expand...

a degree isn't needed, but technical knowledge of what is practical, achievable, viable, scalable, and affordable is needed.
 
Blackdog said:
Then why did you do poorly in this debate? You did not even bother to respond to this...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101519

Common sense and the ability to read go's a long way in pointing out bull****.

You don't need a degree for that.
Click to expand...

It is only in your own mind that I am doing poorly, that is your weak response to my posts.

Summation, for you slower readers.....
Space travel is not necessary, and I do not support it. Sorry if that dissenting opinion offends you....
 
earthworm said:
Wind energy, solar energy have been used by man for thousands of years...We need more money (smaller class sizes) for our schools and less for more wasteful things such as fed. govt programs (NASA)..
Click to expand...

how can that be since NASA hadn't invented them yet?
:2razz:

Next thing the gullible ones will say is that NASA invented space tourism, another thing that 99.999999% of us will never be able to afford.....
 
Blackdog said:
And through the research at NASA it is becoming more viable.



This has nothing to do with NASA. Public schools should not even exist, and is irrelevant as most state property taxes go to the schools. This is not a Federal problem.

More fallacy arguments, jesh.
Click to expand...

No public schools? Where did you get YOUR education? Space travel is not a public problem, so why should the public pay for it?
 
Blackdog said:
People who think it is to dangers to the environment etc.

Does he also need a degree in science? :2wave:
Click to expand...

the word is dangerous...
If we really could extract shale oil for 30 bucks, it would be happening. What are the sources for that number?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The socialist collectivist politics of carbon, the mythical dream of the Alborites that we can heat our homes by holding hands and singing Kumbaya and other stupid schemes the government dreams up to keep the people in chains painted green.
Click to expand...

The greenies file the suits, it is the judges who make the decisions.
 
UtahBill said:
No public schools? Where did you get YOUR education?
Click to expand...

Private schools paid for by my parents. Would you like me to list them for you as well?

Public schools and our public school system are an abomination. So much so we sent our daughter through private schools as well. She is an engineer now.

UtahBill said:
Space travel is not a public problem, so why should the public pay for it?
Click to expand...

Space travel is not the problem and we have reaped many benefits because of the research already shown in this thread. In the future it will be even more valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom