Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

Tubub · Dec 24, 2009

We still need to find Martians.

Gray_Fox_86 · Dec 24, 2009

Orius said:
Canada wouldn't be the leader in robotics if we didn't have the Canadian Space Agency.

Canada is the world's leader in robotics? That's impossible thier space agency is a parasite that lives off NASA. What has Canada done that is anywhere comparable to what the EU or Soviets or USA has done in space???!:shock:

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Orius said:
A lot of the robotics that Canada invented for space research, like the CanadArm, has lead to industry robotics for automated manufacture. Not to mention raw computing power.

Even though I think human social development is not at the right stage for full on space exploration, our long term survival will depend on being able to get off of this planet and spread ourselves into space. NASA has been an excellent start to that process and we are benefitting in the process. Same with any other space agency in the Western world.

Canada wouldn't be the leader in robotics if we didn't have the Canadian Space Agency.

All those things could have been made anyhow if needed, with out having to spend billions going into Space to do it.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

obvious Child said:
So you would have no problem not using a single applied material advancement that was derived from the space program?

MSgt said:
Do you realize how much technology in the private sector exists because of government contracts, which start out focusing on bettering the military? Everything from the computer chip to everyday house hold cleaning chemicals came from government sponsered military contracts. NASA is no different.

EpicDude86 said:
And the Internet.

If all those things are actually that valuable, and could ONLY be produced by going into space, that would be one thing. but they don't need Zero gravity to be produced, and where actually made right here on earth. --Your logic, has a small leak.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

It's this simple, "If Space Exploration were in fact Profitable, then every Major Manufacture on the Planet would be investing in it". The fact that is so expensive, and produces zero profit, is why gubment are into it. ---Lots of tax payer money to pass around. cause they know we all just want to grow up to be Buzz light year---up-up-and away---If they can fool all of you, you know how easy it is to fool the guy on the street. ---Look, up in the air, --It's a bird

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
All those things could have been made anyhow if needed, with out having to spend billions going into Space to do it.

You don't know that. Nothing is 100% and hind site is 20/20.

So unless you have a magic crystal ball that lets you see what could have been, you have no real way of knowing.

So far the space programs have made life and technology better. To speculate on what could have been shows nothing but a lack of argument on your part.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Blackdog said:
You don't know that. Nothing is 100% and hind site is 20/20.

So unless you have a magic crystal ball that lets you see what could have been, you have no real way of knowing.

So far the space programs have made life and technology better. To speculate on what could have been shows nothing but a lack of argument on your part.

You good sir, have no idea what I know---but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
It's this simple, "If Space Exploration were in fact Profitable, then every Major Manufacture on the Planet would be investing in it".

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/TheLaw.pdf
http://www.stephenfleming.net/files/FlemingMoonMarsSmall.pdf

I guess you are in an off handed way correct as they are looking at it to be profitable in the near future.

Skateguy said:
The fact that is so expensive, and produces zero profit, is why gubment are into it.

Orly?

"Cowing on space expenditures relative to other costs: “Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”

"Vernikos on the R.O.I. of space travel: “Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. … Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.” - Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Skateguy said:
---Lots of tax payer money to pass around. cause they know we all just want to grow up to be Buzz light year---up-up-and away---If they can fool all of you, you know how easy it is to fool the guy on the street. ---Look, up in the air, --It's a bird

Well I have already proved 99% of what you stated as nothing more than a useless uniformed rant, but lets continue...

"Logsdon on a not-so-obvious incentive for manned space travel: “Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.”

I wish every kid wanted to be "Buzz Lightyear."

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
You good sir, have no idea what I know---but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

I do know you have no clue as what would have happened if the space program did not exist.

Now if you try and say you do (as you have already hinted at) this would make that a lie.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Blackdog said:
I do know you have no clue as what would have happened if the space program did not exist.

Now if you try and say you do (as you have already hinted at) this would make that a lie.

You seem to have yourselves convinced, you don't need my help. --I just put it out there, I don't try to force feed it.

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
You seem to have yourselves convinced, you don't need my help. --I just put it out there, I don't try to force feed it.

Convinced that you don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter at hand? Yes we are certain. All you need to do is look at my post above this one. :roll:

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Blackdog said:
Convinced that you don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter at hand? Yes we are certain. All you need to do is look at my post above this one. :roll:

I'm sorry, we haven't met--are you like real smart or am I missing something here. Is your opinion more valid than the next guys??? Should everyone see things your way? And when you say we, do you carry a frog in your pocket?:mrgreen:

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
I'm sorry, we haven't met--are you like real smart or am I missing something here.

Smart, yes. Well informed also, although I am not perfect and make mistakes like everyone else.

Skateguy said:
Is your opinion more valid than the next guys??? Should everyone see things your way?

Nope, but my opinion is backed up by a little thing we like to refer to as "evidence." You on the other hand have not offered anything outside of unfounded speculation and hot air.

Skateguy said:
And when you say we, do you carry a frog in your pocket?:mrgreen:

That was so funny. :roll:

Now if you would stop avoiding the irrefutable facts in post #83, we can move on.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/62505-has-nasa-outlived-its-usefulness-9.html#post1058441011

Tucker Case · Dec 24, 2009

apdst said:
So, you don't have a problem pumping the same amount of cash into the military, either, right?

I wouldn't be. I don't think 17 billion is really enough to fund our military. If we pumped the same amount of cash into the military that we do into NASA, the military would take about a $650 billion cut in funding.

the makeout hobo · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
All those things could have been made anyhow if needed, with out having to spend billions going into Space to do it.

I don't know. NASA has been put in situations where they had to try to invent something that no one had ever thought about doing before. Necessity is the mother of invention, right?

the makeout hobo · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
It there is no profit to be gained, then why do tax payers have to fund it??? Charity? -- Sounds to me, like we are supporting somebodies expensive Hobby. Maybe they could make due with an ant farm, or find some other way to pay for it.---there is nothin in space that we need. we had it all here, and screwed it up.

There are lots of long term applications, for one. Zero gravity and the mineral wealth of the solar system have lots of long-term potential. Very long-term, but still.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
There are lots of long term applications, for one. Zero gravity and the mineral wealth of the solar system have lots of long-term potential. Very long-term, but still.

I agree, and once we get back on our financial feet, it would be a good idea to do some mining operations. but we are broke to the bone now, and owe everybody that will float us credit. we act like teenagers at the Mall, with Moms credit card. ---"I want it now, I'll worry about how to pay for it later. Well, it is later". Some don't seem to know how to Priorities, and tighten up our belts. Spend spend spend---It's only a few billion, no big deal. Spoiled Brats, is what we have become.

Hatuey · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
I'm sorry, we haven't met--are you like real smart or am I missing something here. Is your opinion more valid than the next guys??? Should everyone see things your way? And when you say we, do you carry a frog in your pocket?:mrgreen:

It is not a matter of being smart. It is a matter of being able to support you argument. You stated that it is a waste of money. This has been proven to be untrue as it has created revenue for many companies for decades. You have to understand that NASA is not some homogenous entity that created the space program by itself. It had the input of many other smaller companies and countries around the world. I know some of the the software Canada Space Arm is made by a company in Toronto. Some of the parts for the Mars rover are made by Texas IT. NASA not only provides jobs for some of the brightest minds working for the government but also some of the brightest in the private sector.

I mean there are SO many programs you could have picked by the government which I guarantee a large percentage of Americans would see as a waste. But NASA? I mean serious. The nerdy kids? The kids who are responsible for some of the hardware in the very computer you're using? That is just mean. Not sure why you have such a hard on for NASA but it is probably the last program most people would actually vote against. As much as I hate empty rhetorical talk NASA exists because of the will of the people.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Hatuey said:
It is not a matter of being smart. It is a matter of being able to support you argument. You stated that it is a waste of money. This has been proven to be untrue as it has created revenue for many companies for decades. You have to understand that NASA is not some homogenous entity that created the space program by itself. It had the input of many other smaller companies and countries around the world. I know some of the the software Canada Space Arm is made by a company in Toronto. Some of the parts for the Mars rover are made by Texas IT. NASA not only provides jobs for some of the brightest minds working for the government but also some of the brightest in the private sector.

I mean there are SO many programs you could have picked by the government which I guarantee a large percentage of Americans would see as a waste. But NASA? I mean serious. The nerdy kids? The kids who are responsible for some of the hardware in the very computer you're using? That is just mean. Not sure why you have such a hard on for NASA but it is probably the last program most people would actually vote against. As much as I hate empty rhetorical talk NASA exists because of the will of the people.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. You of course, are welcome to yours. I'm not trying to sell you a Buick.

Black Dog · Dec 24, 2009

Skateguy said:
My opinions are just that, my opinions. You of course, are welcome to yours. I'm not trying to sell you a Buick.

In other words...

You got nothing. :2wave:

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Blackdog said:
In other words...

You got nothing. :2wave:

Not for you--find your own way. No skin off my nose.---but this guy has a clue.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY"]YouTube- Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight[/ame]

Tucker Case · Dec 24, 2009

You seem to think space flight is the only valuable aspect of NASA. That's simply false.

Nike alone has made enough off of NASA's developments to justify it's existence.

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

More privately funded operations, that don't include a Old School bus, that can't even fly on it's own----get with the times people. this 2009.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7VrMh-7MEk"]YouTube- Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo SS2 in Hangar[/ame]

Skateguy · Dec 24, 2009

Tucker Case said:
You seem to think space flight is the only valuable aspect of NASA. That's simply false.

Nike alone has made enough off of NASA's developments to justify it's existence.

So let Nike Pay for it---not tax payer money---how hard is that?? Do tax payers have to support every idea that is not profitable???

Areopagitican · Dec 24, 2009

NASA has outlived its usefulness. I'm not debating whether it was always useless, it had its time, but now it needs to be discarded.

Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

Has NASA outlived its usefulness

Yes

No

Well-known member

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Matthew 16:3

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World

Rule of Two

King Of The Dog Pound

Matthew 16:3