• 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
I'll say it one more time--those that think is worth the money, should be the ones to pay for it. Do I ask anyone to pay for my pet projects?? No, that would be presumptuous of me.

Skateguy said:
I would vote for you to get some money.--those are useful things. I have a trunk full of star dust all ready from my last trip home.

I love how you say that you wouldn't ask anyone to pay for your pet projects, then two posts later you do exactly that. :roll:

Where is it enshrined in the Constitution that you shouldn't have to pay for any government program you personally don't like, anyway?
 
Last edited:
It is Christmas, no point in being rude--it's just a discussion.

So what if it's Christmas. People talking about things they obviously have no knowledge of do not get a free pass just because it's some sort of holiday.

As for being rude, try again. I'm assuming you mean about the "ignorant" part when you say that. Being ignorant of something is not a bad thing...it's when you purposely don't educate yourself on something that your are speaking about and refuse to listen to those that know more about a subject that you pass being just ignorant into stupidity. And you're quickly crossing that line.

(now that was being rude.)
 
I love it when people suggest that SUPPLEMENTAL forms of energy are considered alternates....it just isn't so. Wind and solar energy demand a huge land footprint per KWHr.....and will probably never be a substantial percentage of our electric energy mix. ANd when wind/solar are talked up as part of a plan to use less OIL, it behooves us to remember that oil is used so little in the production of electricity that we could say it isn't used at all. Back in the 70's we used bunker oil quite a bit, but no more. Until we have millions, many millions, of electric cars, no alternate or supplental form of electricity generation will play a part in the reduction of our oil usage.
At the moment Nuclear is the only answer to our electricity needs. Nearly every engineer or scientist who understand physics and chemistry knows this already.
NASA serves a purpose here, putting up satellites that study the earth's geography with the purpose of finding more oil.....

You cover a roof with solar panels and you can power that house with those solar panels. I know this because my dad has done it. And you wouldn't be dependant on any company or power lines.

Also those were just examples of the things that NASA is working on in regards to energy. They are working on other things also.

I'm not discounting nuclear energy. Just showing some of the things that NASA is working on. After all you did say that you wish that they would work on things like energy right?
 
All competitive company's that strive to make a profit for their Projects, thus they have incentive.---NASA has no incentive. they have gubment Jobs for life.

1: They do not have their jobs for life. The only ones that might be considered as such is the Director and astronauts. But he/she would have to be extremely lucky to last that long. Because the President can (and does) change who is in charge. So every time a new President comes along the job of Director is up in the air.

The only reason the astronauts might be in that catagory is because of the extremely specialized job that they do.

2: They do have incentive. The kind of incentive that has nothing to do with money. It's called the thirst for knowledge. IMO a hell of a lot better incentive.
 
So what if it's Christmas. People talking about things they obviously have no knowledge of do not get a free pass just because it's some sort of holiday.

As for being rude, try again. I'm assuming you mean about the "ignorant" part when you say that. Being ignorant of something is not a bad thing...it's when you purposely don't educate yourself on something that your are speaking about and refuse to listen to those that know more about a subject that you pass being just ignorant into stupidity. And you're quickly crossing that line.

(now that was being rude.)
I have yet to see you prove you know anything more than anyone else. Your opinion is proof of nothing other than the fact you have one.---I do find it telling that you think so highly of your own, and so little of others who may disagree with you.
 
1: They do not have their jobs for life. The only ones that might be considered as such is the Director and astronauts. But he/she would have to be extremely lucky to last that long. Because the President can (and does) change who is in charge. So every time a new President comes along the job of Director is up in the air.

The only reason the astronauts might be in that catagory is because of the extremely specialized job that they do.

2: They do have incentive. The kind of incentive that has nothing to do with money. It's called the thirst for knowledge. IMO a hell of a lot better incentive.
thirst for knowledge, as an incentive to work fast and efficient, doesn't quite do it for me. Why is this the only field that would consider that reasonable incentive? Don't forget I have Friends who work there. we discuss this a lot.
 
Last edited:
What the **** are you even talking about? NASA's budget has actually decreased. Whereas in the 60s it wasn't unnatural for NASA to go way past 4% in terms of our national budget - today it would be lucky if it got past 0.7%. Seriously. Just because you keep saying NASA is too expensive, does NOT make it so.

Your constant trolling on this matter is getting annoying. Either explain why NASA should be cut ahead of any other project or quit your trolling. You've done nothing but repeat the same vitriol for 15 pages. You haven't provided a SINGLE valid reason as to why NASA should be done away with. Your point that NASA is not productive has been shown to be false. Your point that NASA and the government has no incentive to continue the space has been proven to be false. The creation of new technology is in the best interest of not just the U.S. government but its people. It may sound corny but modern democratic governments do not have an interest in a population which does not have access to education. When they can provide it? They do. NASA has been quintessential in providing volumes of knowledge that kids use today in our schools. Not only that but the information it freely provides has created revenue not only for the government but for the private sector.

You simply have no dog in this fight. You're just trolling now. We The People have decided to fund NASA by democratically electing representatives who will vote for its funding. If you don't like it? Move to Morocco.

in the 60's we were gearing up for a trip to the moon, that kind of money was needed then, not now.
We the people have almost no say in how congress spends tax dollars. To think otherwise is naiive...
 
Name on thing that Humans did on the Moon, that a robot couldn't have done safer and cheaper. ---And hittin a golf ball don't count.
 
I have yet to see you prove you know anything more than anyone else. Your opinion is proof of nothing other than the fact you have one.---I do find it telling that you think so highly of your own, and so little of others who may disagree with you.

*looks back through the posts*

Where are you links to prove what you have said? I see my links disproving what you have said but I don't see any links from you? At least my opinions are backed up with facts.

And I only think little of others opinions when those opinions are based on nothing but misconcieved ideas of what NASA does. And your posts have proven that your whole opinion is based off of just that. Misconcieved ideas.

Through out this whole thread you have said that NASA is a waste of money because it "doesn't do anything productive". I've shown how NASA has helped tremendously. You brush it off saying that private companies could have done the same thing. Well, they didn't. NASA did it. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean crap to reality.

You've complained about NASA's MASSIVE budget, me and others have shown that NASA gets less than 1% of the US's budget. IE their budget isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to other projects which are failing, and yet get billions of more money than NASA.

You call other planets "pieces of dirt" basically saying that it's not worth going to them. Do you have any idea of the type of resources available on those other planets? Do you not realize that Mars could eventually be adapted enough for humans to live on? OH wait, your of the "mother earth" variety. nvm.
 
I love how you say that you wouldn't ask anyone to pay for your pet projects, then two posts later you do exactly that. :roll:

Where is it enshrined in the Constitution that you shouldn't have to pay for any government program you personally don't like, anyway?
Missed the part where I said, "I would vote for" didn't ya.
 
thirst for knowledge, as an incentive to work fast and efficient, doesn't quite do it for me. Why is this the only field that would consider that reasonable incentive? Don't forget I have Friends who work there. we discuss this a lot.

Part in bold: I doubt that very seriously. For the simple fact of the way you have posted in this thread. You display no knowledge of what NASA actually does. Nor any understanding of it.

Not everyone is as greedy as you seem to think. There are quite a few people where knowledge is far more preferable. Otherwise why not become a lawyer or politician? They get paid far more than those that work in NASA. And if they can work in NASA they sure as hell could have become lawyers.
 
Part in bold: I doubt that very seriously. For the simple fact of the way you have posted in this thread. You display no knowledge of what NASA actually does. Nor any understanding of it.

Not everyone is as greedy as you seem to think. There are quite a few people where knowledge is far more preferable. Otherwise why not become a lawyer or politician? They get paid far more than those that work in NASA. And if they can work in NASA they sure as hell could have become lawyers.
So now you question my honesty, and not just my opinion.---I don't much care for folks like you, and will converse with you no longer
 
in the 60's we were gearing up for a trip to the moon, that kind of money was needed then, not now.
We the people have almost no say in how congress spends tax dollars. To think otherwise is naiive...

And that is exatcly my point. To think that NASA - a program which on average the government spends ~0.5% of it's entire budget on - is expensive is ludicrous. The program has provided and continues to research & provide terabytes of data for dozens of different fields, experiments and companies. All of this at around 17 billion dollars for a program which comprises not just space missions but the upkeep of space stations & satellites, the salaries of thousands and the research done by dozens of companies around the world for NASA. Seriously. You can't POSSIBLY say NASA isn't more than worth what it costs.
 
Last edited:
Name on thing that Humans did on the Moon, that a robot couldn't have done safer and cheaper. ---And hittin a golf ball don't count.

You have been attacking NASA as an institution, not manned missions specifically. When you figure out what exactly it is about NASA that pisses you off so much, get back to us. :roll:
 
And that is exatcly my point. To think that NASA - a program which on average the government spends ~0.5% of it's entire budget on - is expensive is ludicrous. The program has provided and continues to research & provide terabytes of data for dozens of different fields, experiments and companies. All of this at around 17 billion dollars for a program which comprises not just space missions but the upkeep of space stations & satellites, the salaries of thousands and the research done by dozens of companies around the world for NASA. Seriously. You can't POSSIBLY say NASA isn't more worth what it costs.
As long as tax payers are given the right to decide it's worth today. We were full of the promise of "Space travel" when NASA started. We saw "2001" and thought it was the future. Well it ain't. Now days we need to redirect that focus on things that serve a more immediate need. the Moon will still be there. If private concerns deem if profitable.
 
As long as tax payers are given the right to decide it's worth today. We were full of the promise of "Space travel" when NASA started. We saw "2001" and thought it was the future. Well it ain't. Now days we need to redirect that focus on things that serve a more immediate need. the Moon will still be there. If private concerns deem if profitable.

I don't know how old you are but if you actually thought that you'd be flying space ships because you saw it in a movie and somebody told you so in the sixties, you're a complete f'n idiot. I don't honestly care what you thought you'd be able to do in the future though. What I do care about is your Pauligan belief that NASA is expensive and that it isn't worth what it costs. It's pure buffoonery.
 
Last edited:
As long as tax payers are given the right to decide it's worth today.

Taxpayers are given the right to decide that every single time there is an election. Vote your congressman/senators/president out of office if their support of NASA pisses you off so much. :roll:

Skateguy said:
We were full of the promise of "Space travel" when NASA started. We saw "2001" and thought it was the future. Well it ain't. Now days we need to redirect that focus on things that serve a more immediate need.

Why can't we do both? NASA's budget is a pittance compared to the federal budget.

Skateguy said:
the Moon will still be there. If private concerns deem if profitable.

This is a strawman. Why do you continually act as though NASA's sole reason for existence is to send human astronauts to the moon or anywhere else? NASA conducts most of its research with unmanned probes.
 
Last edited:
So now you question my honesty, and not just my opinion.---I don't much care for folks like you, and will converse with you no longer

When you state one thing and show another through several posts people are going to question your honesty.
 
*looks back through the posts*

Where are you links to prove what you have said? I see my links disproving what you have said but I don't see any links from you? At least my opinions are backed up with facts.

And I only think little of others opinions when those opinions are based on nothing but misconcieved ideas of what NASA does. And your posts have proven that your whole opinion is based off of just that. Misconcieved ideas.

Through out this whole thread you have said that NASA is a waste of money because it "doesn't do anything productive". I've shown how NASA has helped tremendously. You brush it off saying that private companies could have done the same thing. Well, they didn't. NASA did it. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean crap to reality.

You've complained about NASA's MASSIVE budget, me and others have shown that NASA gets less than 1% of the US's budget. IE their budget isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to other projects which are failing, and yet get billions of more money than NASA.

You call other planets "pieces of dirt" basically saying that it's not worth going to them. Do you have any idea of the type of resources available on those other planets? Do you not realize that Mars could eventually be adapted enough for humans to live on? OH wait, your of the "mother earth" variety. nvm.

What technical or engineering knowledge do you have to support your opinions, because that is all they are. You are repeating the opinions of others, of course. Yes, NASA budget is not large compared to the entire budget, but a billion here, a billion there, soon we are talking trillions....
And Mars is not going to be made habitable by just repeating the opinions of others and/or spending more money on the project.
The accumulative occurrences that makes Earth habitable are numerous, it is pure luck that conditions here allow life. Do you really think that we can terraform Mars, give it an atmosphere, boost its temperature, boost its gravity, etc.?
About 50 years ago I read Popular Science regularly, my father's favorite magazine. A lot of the same pipe dreams that were written about then are still being written about....and it makes gullible people invest in things that are never going to happen. Example, Fusion is still at least another 50 years away and is NOT as easy, safe and pollution free as some would have us believe. Second example, the aerocar works, but is stupid. Do we want the average person flying? No, the average person is dangerous enough driving.
I see some pretty stupid antinuke stuff on one TV show, and the next day some pretty stupid gushing about how wonderful the next imaginary power source is going to be.
If you are not educated in engineering, energy, physics, chemistry, you will be easily fooled by these media jerks who report on things they know nothing about...
 
What technical or engineering knowledge do you have to support your opinions, because that is all they are. You are repeating the opinions of others, of course. Yes, NASA budget is not large compared to the entire budget, but a billion here, a billion there, soon we are talking trillions....
And Mars is not going to be made habitable by just repeating the opinions of others and/or spending more money on the project.
The accumulative occurrences that makes Earth habitable are numerous, it is pure luck that conditions here allow life. Do you really think that we can terraform Mars, give it an atmosphere, boost its temperature, boost its gravity, etc.?
About 50 years ago I read Popular Science regularly, my father's favorite magazine. A lot of the same pipe dreams that were written about then are still being written about....and it makes gullible people invest in things that are never going to happen. Example, Fusion is still at least another 50 years away and is NOT as easy, safe and pollution free as some would have us believe. Second example, the aerocar works, but is stupid. Do we want the average person flying? No, the average person is dangerous enough driving.
I see some pretty stupid antinuke stuff on one TV show, and the next day some pretty stupid gushing about how wonderful the next imaginary power source is going to be.
If you are not educated in engineering, energy, physics, chemistry, you will be easily fooled by these media jerks who report on things they know nothing about...

Dont need a degree in anything to know that the technology in these links are facts. These are things used every day. Do you think they are myths?


And two hundred years ago people didn't think that we could fly. Yet we have gone to the moon and come back.

And have you heard about VASIMIR and Ion engines? VASIMIR is still being developed but the Ion engine is currently in use. And from what I have heard may even be installed on the next shuttle. Though it would still have to use chemical rockets initially to break free from the Earth. A good Ion engine could make the trip to mars in just 39 days....with far less fuel consumption than what the current shuttle uses if it were to go the same distance. (imagine how quick it would be to go to the moon. You could literally go there and be back in time for dinner.)

As far as inhabiting Mars perhaps I did word that wrong. I was thinking of dome colonies. But who knows. One day we might be able to terraform it.

I have a saying, nothing is impossible if you have the knowledge and resources to do it. And that is part of what NASA is about..gaining the knowledge.

BTW why use an example of something that works? Just because you think it would be stupid to allow the "average citizen" to use one? We have the technology to input a destination and have jumbo jets fly themselves. Why could that technology not be applied to flying cars? Granted the hard part would be take off and landing but I'm sure something will eventually be worked out in that department.
 
Last edited:
Dont need a degree in anything to know that the technology in these links are facts. These are things used every day. Do you think they are myths?



And two hundred years ago people didn't think that we could fly. Yet we have gone to the moon and come back.

And have you heard about VASIMIR and Ion engines? VASIMIR is still being developed but the Ion engine is currently in use. And from what I have heard may even be installed on the next shuttle. Though it would still have to use chemical rockets initially to break free from the Earth. A good Ion engine could make the trip to mars in just 39 days....with far less fuel consumption than what the current shuttle uses if it were to go the same distance. (imagine how quick it would be to go to the moon. You could literally go there and be back in time for dinner.)

As far as inhabiting Mars perhaps I did word that wrong. I was thinking of dome colonies. But who knows. One day we might be able to terraform it.

I have a saying, nothing is impossible if you have the knowledge and resources to do it. And that is part of what NASA is about..gaining the knowledge.

BTW why use an example of something that works? Just because you think it would be stupid to allow the "average citizen" to use one? We have the technology to input a destination and have jumbo jets fly themselves. Why could that technology not be applied to flying cars? Granted the hard part would be take off and landing but I'm sure something will eventually be worked out in that department.

It is silly to assume that technology exists thanks to NASA alone. It assumes that others outside NASA would never have made an effort to invent anything. The "long" list attributed to NASA has a lot of fiction in it.

Why do I use an example that works? To show how naiive many of us are. Fuel Cells work, but are horribly expensive. The cost is justified when using such technology in space, but on earth? Flying cars? IT would take many more computers and satellites to track and control the air traffic. BUT, it would make for a bit of convenience for a few people. Do we have billions to waste nowadays? Technology has progressed far beyond the average persons ability to use it.
Then there is the pollution aspect. An aerocar gets terrible gas mileage...
Lots of NASA technology is only economically useful to NASA, and that is because they get to use taxpayer money....:shock:
 
Lots of NASA technology is only economically useful to NASA, and that is because they get to use taxpayer money....:shock:
Virtually every aspect of government is taxpayer funded. What you suggest is to end the funding of NASA simply because technological progress and scientific breakthroughs cost money. That was the rationale behind the decision to terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The European CERN collider will now unlock the fundamental secrets of nature that the US declined to harvest.

Nothing ventured is nothing gained. We are the children of the stars and there are no freebies in nature. Everything has a concomitant cost.
 
True enough that many projects are Tax Payer funded. and have you ever thought to question who gave them the go ahead on all those projects?? We should be allowed to vote on projects before they are funded. Just to give guibment a blank check, and say "Happy Shopping" is just one reason we are in the shape we are in. They will always spend more than we give them. We have our heads in the air, but no longer have our feet on the ground. At the rate we are destroying our Planet, we won't be around long enough to spread our virus into Space. And space will be happy. ---to ignore problems here at home, and act like they will fix themselves, and to focus on that grass that looks greener on the other side of the fence, is Human Nature at it's best. --We are slow studies it seems.
 
Last edited:
Virtually every aspect of government is taxpayer funded. What you suggest is to end the funding of NASA simply because technological progress and scientific breakthroughs cost money. That was the rationale behind the decision to terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The European CERN collider will now unlock the fundamental secrets of nature that the US declined to harvest.

Nothing ventured is nothing gained. We are the children of the stars and there are no freebies in nature. Everything has a concomitant cost.

Where did I suggest ending the funding? :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom