• 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!

Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

Has NASA outlived its usefulness

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 11.8%
  • No

    Votes: 60 88.2%

  • Total voters
    68

Skateguy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
378
Location
Houston/Heights
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
 
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.


I'm all for exploration. Just think, if we start colonizing the moon, we might be able to do something about the illegal alien problem.:lol:
 
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.

No. Private capital in space, like its terrestrial cousin will only go where it can be reasonably assured of profit. That largely means research and exploration is not going to be funded. What's the profit in hitting the moon with a rocket? None. What's the scientific value? Immense, especially in proving that water in ice form is there and could potentially be used as a source for fuel and for habitation.
 
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers,

Examples?

Skateguy said:
is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.

"Hitting the Moon with a rocket" determined the existence of water on the moon. Not quite as trivial and pointless as you want to make it sound.
 
No. Private capital in space, like its terrestrial cousin will only go where it can be reasonably assured of profit. That largely means research and exploration is not going to be funded. What's the profit in hitting the moon with a rocket? None. What's the scientific value? Immense, especially in proving that water in ice form is there and could potentially be used as a source for fuel and for habitation.
There have already been Private ventures into space. and since they are in it for a profit, and get no free ride, as NASA does, they are cost efficient.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Poll added
 
There have already been Private ventures into space. and since they are in it for a profit, and get no free ride, as NASA does, they are cost efficient.

NASA's mission is a bit broader than Space Ship One's mission, if that's what you're referring to. :roll:
 
Examples?



"Hitting the Moon with a rocket" determined the existence of water on the moon. Not quite as trivial and pointless as you want to make it sound.
We have some water here too, I do believe, that we continue to poison at an ever increasing rate. Why would we do things any differently on the Moon or any where else? We don't need to expand our exploitation to other worlds. we are not yet ready. ---we still produce garbage. :2wave:
 
We have some water here too, I do believe, that we continue to poison at an ever increasing rate.

Completely irrelevant to the scientific knowledge gained from this mission.

Skateguy said:
Why would we do things any differently on the Moon or any where else? We don't need to expand our exploitation to other worlds. we are not yet ready. ---we still produce garbage. :2wave:

Yeahhhh....
When NASA starts building lunar colonies you might have a point. But that isn't what they did. NASA is primarily a research organization, not the colonization arm of the US government. :roll:
 
There's no Space. It's all a liberal lie to waste money. The moon is actually an artist rendering from a projector.
 
Private Enterprise will hopefully teach NASA a thing or two about working on a budget, but its hardly a replacement. The basic research and scientific exploration needed won't come from venture capitalists.
 
Private Enterprise will hopefully teach NASA a thing or two about working on a budget, but its hardly a replacement. The basic research and scientific exploration needed won't come from venture capitalists.


What we need is to find the proverbial carrot on a string to spur the private sector into space exploration research without actually giving them anything. ;)
 
Private Enterprise will hopefully teach NASA a thing or two about working on a budget, but its hardly a replacement. The basic research and scientific exploration needed won't come from venture capitalists.

Why are people talking like NASA doesn't have a budget. It does and it is less than 1% of our federal budget. If anything NASA's budget as a percentage of the national budget has been decreasing for years. Dollar for dollar it is probably one of the most productive programs our government runs.
 
Last edited:
There have already been Private ventures into space.

And virtually none of them are dealing in exploration and research. Most of the high profile are in tourism, which is little more then a piggy back on the hard work done by NASA and the Russians. Many of the others deal in satellites which are again piggy backing on military space expenditures.

Your argument fails to understand just how capitalism works. For the most part, capitalist ventures do not invest in activities that are not reasonably assured some profit. As you cited yourself, shooting the moon with a rocket pretty much has no direct profit potential. However, there is large amounts of data that would be valuable to government funded programs, such as a moon base.

If we let private capital do everything in new fields that do not have reasonable assurances of profit, we wouldn't get far.
 
Why are people talking like NASA doesn't have a budget. It does and it is less than 1% of our federal budget. If anything NASA's budget as a percentage of the national budget has been decreasing for years. Dollar for dollar it is probably one of the most productive programs our government runs.

Especially when you consider the mere material advances. Modern Corporate Capitalism owes a large chunk of its profits to the applied materials that were developed for the space programs. Just as big pharm owes much of its patents to the NIH. People tend to forget that the basis for the modern space program was born largely out of government's desire to kill people. I've asked this before, and of course gotten no response, but what new industry was entirely funded by private capital?
 
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.

'Hitting the moon with a rocket' as you put it was actually quite an elegant solution to that particular problem. The object that actually impacted the moon (well, the first one anyway) was part of the launch vehicle that would ordinarily have fallen back to earth and burned up in the atmosphere. 79 million for something like that is remarkably cheap as well.

The other issue at stake here is that commercial space exploration is nowhere near as advanced, nor can it do as much, as NASA. While I think that we'll eventually see a scaling back of NASA as more and more commercial space ventures start up, I don't think it'll ever be completely gone, nor should it be.
 
Why are people talking like NASA doesn't have a budget. It does and it is less than 1% of our federal budget. If anything NASA's budget as a percentage of the national budget has been decreasing for years. Dollar for dollar it is probably one of the most productive programs our government runs.

True and did you know that the Air Force spends the same amount as NASA for its own space research program? Interesting really. So that amount would be 17.6 billion dollars a year. I can at least hope that the Air Force already has satelites that can hover and track an enemy without needing to orbit the planet. And then the Air Force probably has a decent spacecraft that can go into space and travel to the highly desirable target for the hit squads to kill.
 
True and did you know that the Air Force spends the same amount as NASA for its own space research program? Interesting really. So that amount would be 17.6 billion dollars a year. I can at least hope that the Air Force already has satelites that can hover and track an enemy without needing to orbit the planet. And then the Air Force probably has a decent spacecraft that can go into space and travel to the highly desirable target for the hit squads to kill.
Sounds good to me.....;)
 
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.

Wow...I'm sorry but that has got to be the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard.

You obviously have no idea of the kinds of technology that we now employ thanks to NASA.

Here..educate yourself...

10 Types of Technology We Got From NASA (mind you this is just 10 of them..there are way more.)

NASA Research Finds Way Into IT, Consumer Products

NASA Office of Technology Transfer

CNN - 10 more bits of technology that is around thanks to NASA

Just imagine. Without NASA around you probably wouldn't have near the nifty things that you do...or even get saved by some of that technology.

IMO NASA should get at least 10X's the amount of funding that it does. At least. As far as I'm concerned NASA is the best program that our government has EVER done. It's really the only one that has ever given more than it's taken. With maybe the exception of the military...which keeps our freedoms secure.
 
Last edited:
Wow...I'm sorry but that has got to be the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard.

You obviously have no idea of the kinds of technology that we now employ thanks to NASA.

Here..educate yourself...

10 Types of Technology We Got From NASA (mind you this is just 10 of them..there are way more.)

NASA Research Finds Way Into IT, Consumer Products

NASA Office of Technology Transfer

CNN - 10 more bits of technology that is around thanks to NASA

Just imagine. Without NASA around you probably wouldn't have near the nifty things that you do...or even get saved by some of that technology.

IMO NASA should get at least 10X's the amount of funding that it does. At least. As far as I'm concerned NASA is the best program that our government has EVER done. It's really the only one that has ever given more than it's taken. With maybe the exception of the military...which keeps our freedoms secure.
yeah but there has been several technology that was created by the private market not for NASA that NASA uses. If you are trying to say why should we continue funding for NASA it should be for the good of all mankind(sorry women you really don't have a place in this world:3oops:). Besides the US is hiding great tech from being used. For all we can guess is that the US already has a spacecraft capable of replacing the atlantis already but the government doesn't want the rest of the world to know so they keep it secret. And for what?
 
Completely irrelevant to the scientific knowledge gained from this mission.



Yeahhhh....
When NASA starts building lunar colonies you might have a point. But that isn't what they did. NASA is primarily a research organization, not the colonization arm of the US government. :roll:
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.
 
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.

Yeah but the technological advancment of colonizing space is so much more and it encourages more than say people colonizing the Sahara which there are already people living in and we already know the methods of colonizing those type of lands. Colonizing space is so much more than just about settling in different areas because we "feel" crowded.
 
Yeah but the technological advancment of colonizing space is so much more and it encourages more than say people colonizing the Sahara which there are already people living in and we already know the methods of colonizing those type of lands. Colonizing space is so much more than just about settling in different areas because we "feel" crowded.
If it is then such a good idea to explore space, why aren't major Corporations stepping up to get a slice of the Pie??---the gubment always takes on jobs, that are money pits. They run NASA, like tha post office. We don't need to spend billions in space--to make Velcro.
 
NASA is perhaps the best example of a government program actually working extremely well.
 
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.

yeah, but it's so much cooler to go to the moon, and you lose weight
 
Back
Top Bottom