• 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 Goals For America: What Next?

What's next for the United States?


  • Total voters
    33
Sure, the achievement itself is a worthy human goal. Why does that mean we can't wait until the technology is actually economically feasible before we commit to it? What's so special about right now? Mars isn't going anywhere.

You will always be able to make that argument.

We should do it now because we can.


Wrong. Every government dollar spent on a trip to Mars is one less government dollar that can be spent on something that actually helps society here on earth. Which is really holding back progress - staying home or wasting upwards of a trillion dollars on a trip to Mars?

What do you mean, "wrong"? You basically just said exactly what I was objecting to.

My guess is, there will NEVER be a "right time" in your estimation. There will ALWAYS be other priorities, other "better" or "more useful" things to spend the money on. Which is exactly what I said.



There WERE reasons for all of those things, unlike going to Mars. Even at the time, people could recognize the utility of airplanes and automobiles.

A few visionary people did. For the most part, it was dismissed as folly and fantasy and without any real benefit.


None of those things cost taxpayers a trillion dollars.

And who says going to Mars will cost a "trillion dollars"?


None of those things were done decades before they were economically practical. If the ancient Romans had decided that instead of building aqueducts, they were going to build a flying machine that could cross the ocean, they would've been wasting their money. Societies typically don't want to bite off more than they can chew, and for good reason.

The Romans frequently "bit off more they could chew" from an engineering standpoint, and that's WHY they had aqueducts in the first place.

It's a preposterous analogy anyway (and you've been making a lot of those lately). Even by your own estimation, the technology leap is decades away, not centuries. And that's only if we put it off, like you'll perpetually insist we "must."

Because there will always be something "more" to do, some other problem to tackle "first."


Sorry, but not being boring isn't a good enough reason to spend an unimaginable amount of taxpayer money when there ARE things the money could be spent on that WILL help people.

Yes, yes, yes. "Can't, can't, can't, can't, can't." "Not now, not now, not now, not now." "Wait, wait, wait, wait."

Do you think we'd have gone to the Moon at all if this argument had prevailed? It was out there. Why, Walter Mondale tried to kill NASA quite vigorously exactly because of this.

If we hadn't gone to the Moon, if they HAD killed the program, there's a great deal we take for granted today which we wouldn't have.


I think that most of the people criticizing the "wait, wait, wait" mentality are just trying to hide their own selfish desire: THEY have always thought about going to Mars, and want to see it happen in their lifetime regardless of the costs to the public.

It's about the advancement of humankind, rather than its stagnation. It's about saying we've "waited" long enough. It's been 40 years since the Moon landings; it's time to move on. The only reasons to wait are pencil-pushing, bean-counting, unimaginative, unadventurous, pessimistic worry-warts.

But, if you don't have the vision, you don't have it. Not everyone does. I guess the world needs playground minders, too.
 
You will always be able to make that argument.

We should do it now because we can.

Why?

Harshaw said:
What do you mean, "wrong"? You basically just said exactly what I was objecting to.

My guess is, there will NEVER be a "right time" in your estimation. There will ALWAYS be other priorities, other "better" or "more useful" things to spend the money on. Which is exactly what I said.

Possibly. I don't have a crystal ball to know what future problems the world might have to deal with. But at the present time this certainly is not a very high priority on the list of things we could spend money on, which could improve the world.

Eventually humans will colonize space (if we don't destroy ourselves first). But there's no reason it has to be done right now, or in 20 years, or even in a hundred years, if there are more pressing problems. The main reason you want to do it now is because you want to see it happen in your lifetime...which is incredibly selfish.

Harshaw said:
A few visionary people did. For the most part, it was dismissed as folly and fantasy and without any real benefit.

People have wanted flying machines for millennia. And vehicles that can travel much faster than a horse would be quite obviously useful to anyone at the time.

Harshaw said:
And who says going to Mars will cost a "trillion dollars"?

It's just a common estimate that I've heard, I don't know how accurate it actually is. Keep in mind that putting people on the moon cost about $30 billion...which is about $180 billion in today's terms.

If we extrapolate from that how much it would cost to go to Mars, it would be at least several times as much. So a trillion seems like a reasonable estimate. But even if the actual price tag is $700-800 billion, my point still stands.

Harshaw said:
The Romans frequently "bit off more they could chew" from an engineering standpoint, and that's WHY they had aqueducts in the first place.

It's a preposterous analogy anyway (and you've been making a lot of those lately). Even by your own estimation, the technology leap is decades away, not centuries. And that's only if we put it off, like you'll perpetually insist we "must."

Well then we can do it in a few decades, not centuries.

And what makes you think I'll perpetually insist that we must wait? Like I said, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know how many of the problems currently facing the world will be solved in a few decades, nor do I have more than rough estimates on how long it will take us to develop mature nanotechnology which will make space exploration much cheaper/easier.

Harshaw said:
Because there will always be something "more" to do, some other problem to tackle "first."

So what? If there's always some other pressing problem, there's always some other pressing problem. You have to prioritize. There is no law that says we have to go to Mars right now, or even this century.

Harshaw said:
Yes, yes, yes. "Can't, can't, can't, can't, can't." "Not now, not now, not now, not now." "Wait, wait, wait, wait."

Do you think we'd have gone to the Moon at all if this argument had prevailed? It was out there. Why, Walter Mondale tried to kill NASA quite vigorously exactly because of this.

Going to the Moon was a waste of money.

Harshaw said:
If we hadn't gone to the Moon, if they HAD killed the program, there's a great deal we take for granted today which we wouldn't have.

We could've gotten the same products much more cheaply through direct R&D, *without* the $180 billion price tag.

Harshaw said:
It's about the advancement of humankind, rather than its stagnation. It's about saying we've "waited" long enough. It's been 40 years since the Moon landings; it's time to move on. The only reasons to wait are pencil-pushing, bean-counting, unimaginative, unadventurous, pessimistic worry-warts.

But, if you don't have the vision, you don't have it. Not everyone does. I guess the world needs playground minders, too.

Which contributes more to the advancement of humankind - eradicating malaria, protecting our environment, educating our children, ending hunger, fighting AIDS, safeguarding nuclear material, improving access to clean drinking water...or sending a few people to Mars?

Your infantile name-calling aside, the people lacking vision are those who want to waste unimaginable sums of money on a silly stunt instead of actually doing something to contribute to the world.
 
Last edited:
Sure, the achievement itself is a worthy human goal. Why does that mean we can't wait until the technology is actually economically feasible before we commit to it? What's so special about right now? Mars isn't going anywhere.

Yes.

Exactly.

100%

Why didn't the Pilgrims wait until they could buy tickets on the Titanic to get to America? America wasn't moving away very fast.
 
Eventually humans will colonize space (if we don't destroy ourselves first).

Not if your mindset is the prevailing one.

But there's no reason it has to be done right now, or in 20 years, or even in a hundred years, if there are more pressing problems.

There's no reason anything ever "has" to be done, other than to do it.


And what makes you think I'll perpetually insist that we must wait?

Because of this:


Going to the Moon was a waste of money.

We could've gotten the same products much more cheaply through direct R&D, *without* the $180 billion price tag.

:2wave:

Which contributes more to the advancement of humankind - eradicating malaria, protecting our environment, educating our children, ending hunger, fighting AIDS, safeguarding nuclear material, improving access to clean drinking water...or sending a few people to Mars?

Even if all that was zero-sum, either or, can-only-do-one-or-the-other (which it isn't) . . . sending people to Mars.


Your infantile name-calling aside, the people lacking vision are those who want to waste unimaginable sums of money on a silly stunt instead of actually doing something to contribute to the world.

That you see it as merely a "silly stunt" illustrates the lack of vision. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

Exactly.

100%

Why didn't the Pilgrims wait until they could buy tickets on the Titanic to get to America? America wasn't moving away very fast.

Did the Pilgrims make the taxpayers back home foot the bill? And were they the first ones to do what they did? No?
 
Did the Pilgrims make the taxpayers back home foot the bill? And were they the first ones to do what they did? No?

Most explorers were chartered with tax money, yes.
 
Even if all that was zero-sum, either or, can-only-do-one-or-the-other (which it isn't)

It is a zero-sum in terms of government spending. Sure, we can spend SOME money to go to Mars and SOME money on those other things...or we can spend ALL the money on those other things to actually make them better.

Harshaw said:
sending people to Mars.

Why? All the things I listed have tangible benefits that will actually make the world a better place. Sending people to Mars does not.
 
Most explorers were chartered with tax money, yes.

The Pilgrims were not explorers, and explorers were claiming land for their home government in exchange for the tax money. I doubt NASA is going to claim that Mars is the property of the United States the minute we land there. Furthermore, the European empires did not have little robots that could have explored the New World much more cheaply and efficiently than humans.
 
It is a zero-sum in terms of government spending. Sure, we can spend SOME money to go to Mars and SOME money on those other things...or we can spend ALL the money on those other things to actually make them better.

And there's no guarantee that it will, is there?


Why? All the things I listed have tangible benefits that will actually make the world a better place. Sending people to Mars does not.

And you keep objecting to my saying you lack vision. :roll:
 
And there's no guarantee that it will, is there?

Nope. There's no guarantee that spending more money to, say, eradicate malaria will actually translate to the world being a better place. But I can guarantee you that sending some people to Mars, planting a flag, and coming back will NOT translate to the world being a better place.

Harshaw said:
And you keep objecting to my saying you lack vision. :roll:

Again, WHO lacks vision here? You object to spending money (or at least the money that you'd divert toward Mars) on all of those things I listed because "there's no guarantee" that they'll work...and *I* lack vision? :roll:
 
The Pilgrims were not explorers, and explorers were claiming land for their home government in exchange for the tax money. I doubt NASA is going to claim that Mars is the property of the United States the minute we land there.

We will certainly exploit what we find.


Furthermore, the European empires did not have little robots that could have explored the New World much more cheaply and efficiently than humans.

Yeah. Robots. :roll: If you don't intrinsically get the tangible benefits of footprints on the surface, then you just aren't going to. Like I said, not everyone does.
 
We will certainly exploit what we find.




Yeah. Robots. :roll: If you don't intrinsically get the tangible benefits of footprints on the surface, then you just aren't going to. Like I said, not everyone does.

And if you don't intrinsically understand that footprints on the surface of Mars are NOT worth upwards of a trillion dollars - and certainly are not more important to the advancement of humanity than all the other goals I mentioned - then you just aren't going to. Like I said, not everyone does.

Too bad you lack vision.
 
Nope. There's no guarantee that spending more money to, say, eradicate malaria will actually translate to the world being a better place. But I can guarantee you that sending some people to Mars, planting a flag, and coming back will NOT translate to the world being a better place.

This is a typical failure of imagination. One only needs to look at the offshoots of the space program already to see how demonstrably, palpably, woefully wrong that is.

Some things don't get invented simply because there's no reason to invent them. It's only after they've been invented for a purpose that lots more applications become apparent, and THAT'S when it trickles into everyday life.



Again, WHO lacks vision here? You object to spending money (or at least the money that you'd divert toward Mars) on all of those things I listed because "there's no guarantee" that they'll work...and *I* lack vision? :roll:

No, I don't. :rofl I was using your own argument against you. Jeez. :roll:
 
And if you don't intrinsically understand that footprints on the surface of Mars are NOT worth upwards of a trillion dollars - and certainly are not more important to the advancement of humanity than all the other goals I mentioned - then you just aren't going to. Like I said, not everyone does.

Too bad you lack vision.

If I objected to any of that other stuff, then you might have a whisper of an argument.
 
And if you don't intrinsically understand that footprints on the surface of Mars are NOT worth upwards of a trillion dollars - and certainly are not more important to the advancement of humanity than all the other goals I mentioned - then you just aren't going to. Like I said, not everyone does.

Too bad you lack vision.

Any society that develops robotics to the point where robots are replacing humans on thte frontiers is a society that will be using those machines to be their slaves at home. Why deal with a nosy maid when a robot will do everything you want it to without having an opinion?

Societies that rely on slave labor decay and die.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twuScTcDP_Q"]YouTube - "Moon" - Official Trailer [HQ][/ame]
 
More than that . . .

A society which builds robots to everything is an inward-looking, stagnant one.

Robots free people to do . . . what? Watch TV?
 
Did the Pilgrims make the taxpayers back home foot the bill? And were they the first ones to do what they did? No?

Work on your relevance arguments, you ain't got none. You're aguing against the irrelevant details of a metaphor that shattered your argument.

What should I have done, named Columbus instead? Would that make you happier?

Should Magellan have waited for the invention of the Boeing 747 before partially circumnavigating the world (gotta say it that way, some clown might point out the fact that Magellan didn't make it all the way around.)
 
Well, the argument that in 20 years (or however long) we'll have the technology to go to Mars, without ever actually, you know, trying to develop the technology to go to Mars, is asinine on its face.
 
Well, the argument that in 20 years (or however long) we'll have the technology to go to Mars, without ever actually, you know, trying to develop the technology to go to Mars, is asinine on its face.

Yeah, for some reason I can't figure out a way to conjure up an Apollo Command Service Module from a dedicated effort to create a video cassette recorder.

Getting a VCR from the research to build the CSM seems plausible, though.

Ya think he's going to refute my statement by telling us that the essentials of the VCR predate Werner von Braun's work on the V-2?
 
Any society that develops robotics to the point where robots are replacing humans on thte frontiers is a society that will be using those machines to be their slaves at home. Why deal with a nosy maid when a robot will do everything you want it to without having an opinion?

Societies that rely on slave labor decay and die.

Well whether you like it or not, our technology is heading toward robots playing more and more of a role in our everyday lives...and they're already dominant in space exploration.
 
More than that . . .

A society which builds robots to everything is an inward-looking, stagnant one.

Really? How are you defining "robot" in this context? Do you have an example of such a society, and can you prove that having technology caused it to become stagnant?

Harshaw said:
Robots free people to do . . . what? Watch TV?

Why build backhoes...we'll just put ditch diggers out of work. :roll:
 
Yeah, for some reason I can't figure out a way to conjure up an Apollo Command Service Module from a dedicated effort to create a video cassette recorder.

Getting a VCR from the research to build the CSM seems plausible, though.

Ya think he's going to refute my statement by telling us that the essentials of the VCR predate Werner von Braun's work on the V-2?

Well, it's similar to what you say.

"We shouldn't cross the Atlantic until we have the technology to build the QE2."

But why would anyone develop the technology to build the QE2 unless they're planning to cross the ocean?

Some developments are application-specific. There's no earthly analogy to sending men to another planet, no offshoot of some other project, so you have to tackle that specific problem to develop the technology to get it done. To do it, you have to want it. Or it won't get done.
 
Last edited:
Really? How are you defining "robot" in this context? Do you have an example of such a society, and can you prove that having technology caused it to become stagnant?

Why build backhoes...we'll just put ditch diggers out of work. :roll:

Nice try, but not the same thing at all. The question is far more deeply philosophical than you seem to be grasping. I'm not worried about putting people out of work. It's about having a purpose in life, about moving forward.
 
Work on your relevance arguments, you ain't got none. You're aguing against the irrelevant details of a metaphor that shattered your argument.

What should I have done, named Columbus instead? Would that make you happier?

Should Magellan have waited for the invention of the Boeing 747 before partially circumnavigating the world (gotta say it that way, some clown might point out the fact that Magellan didn't make it all the way around.)

Columbus and Magellan received taxpayer money because a government saw a tangible benefit - a new trade route with Asia - in funding them. There is no comparable benefit to going to Mars and planting a flag.
 
Back
Top Bottom