• 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!

Should the US ReCalim the Moon

Should the US Reclaim the moon?


  • Total voters
    21
And when you cook with cast iron, a little bit of iron leaches into your food, adding needed iron to your diet.

With Teflon, I hate to think of what is leaching into my food. I avoid it like the plague.
 
Oh man yummy:

fd_chicken17_085_cl.jpg

Is that frying pan racist? :2razz::rofl
 
Okay, I'm going to do a little analysis here.

Obama aims to ax moon mission
NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.
...

I am fully in favor of space exploration and the exploitation of resources found there. I firmly believe that the 22nd century will belong to those nations who expand into space in the 21st century.

Helium 3, Metahelium-64, megatons of iron in near-earth asteroids; the possibility of finding a "variagate" asteroid of solid gold or solid thorium... the possibilities are endless.

And one day colonizing moons, planets, space habitats, zero-gee industrial stations... there are incredible possibilities.

Yet right now we still don't have a good, cheap way into orbit. I still remember very well when the first shuttle rolled out... I was disappointed. There had been a great deal of talk about the scramjet/spaceplane concept, or single-stage-to-orbit possibilities, and the Shuttle, awesome though it is in its own way, was not really as much of a jump forward as I'd hoped for.

Basically the scramjet got shelved in favor of a shorter-term, cheaper-to-develop alternative.

We need more basic research into propulsion systems, and cheaper ways into orbit. The development of carbon nanotubes opens the door to the possibility of a skyhook system; mass-driver launchers could be another way; even the scramjet/spaceplane concept would be a dramatic improvement over what we've got. There was an intresting idea, the Delta Clipper, for a SSTO that apparently vanished in the 80's.

We've got to find a better (cheaper!) way to get into orbit if we're really going to get anywhere.

We need better propulsion systems. It's going to take fusion rockets or perhaps Metahelium-64 rockets to really put the solar system within reach of practical manned missions.

All of this needs research and development.

The idea of going back to the moon in 2020 was exciting... then I saw that they were basically planning to re-engineer the same methods that were used for the Apollo and Saturn V moon missions. That was less exciting. It seemed like a step backward, instead of forward.

Private enterprise, like the X-prize and Virgin Galactic, show what innovative enterpreneurs can do. NASA comes across as overly bureaucratic, and hamstrung by Congressional "oversight" by Congresscritters who probably can't spell "asteroid" and don't know what Helium-3 is. Maybe private space exploration will really be the key to the future.

If we spend the next 20 to 30 years developing a better way into orbit, and a better propulsion system for getting around once we're out there, we will ultimately be a lot better off... even if I might not be around to see it come to fruition, I'd feel better knowing it was being done right.

I don't necessarily trust this political move as being anything other than political, or necessarily the RIGHT kind of re-direction of efforts I think we need... but IF they actually do some of the things I bolded in the quoted text, we might get somewhere.

If we had the budget I'd love to see us doing the kind of research I'm talking about while CONTINUING to explore space with what we've got on hand...but if I have to chose one or the other, I want the research and development done on better surface-to-orbit and propulsion technologies. I might not live to see it, but my son or my hypothetical grandchildren might get to see it from the surface of the moon.

One way or another, though, we'll either expand into space in the 21st Century, or we'll be relegated to the dust bin of history like the Spanish Armada and the Conquistadores.

My two bits.

G.
 
Last edited:
In light of the sentiment you often endorse, arguing for government intervention... on the moon... is quite stunning.

Not once you learn to understand the Constitution and demand it be applied properly by the government.

I'm being consistent, fully aware of the APPEARANCE of conflict in what I say, even though I'm also certain the finer nuances can escape the shallow.

In an attempt to stay consistent,

I am consistent.

Always.

I'm even regular, if you need such information.

Something tells me if the federal government were to subsidize such an endeavor, you would be one of the first to complain about "intrusion/intervention". ;)

You should shoot something that tells you lies like that.
 
My two bits.

G.

Appreciated, but what happens is that certain groups, who want to see any and all technology investment halted in favor of wasteful useless never successful social programs, wind up demanding that Christopher Columbus not be allowed to sail the ocean blue until the Titanic is built.

And then after the Titanic sinks, they say we need to halt space exploration becuase they've made it too expensive.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Poll added
 
I love it. We can't sustain managing this downturn in our economy because we are already an overextended empire. And, some people want us to spend spend spend to get to the moon again so that we can spend spend spend to try and increase and sustain an even bigger empire. Cute.
 
I love it. We can't sustain managing this downturn in our economy because we are already an overextended empire. And, some people want us to spend spend spend to get to the moon again so that we can spend spend spend to try and increase and sustain an even bigger empire. Cute.

Some of whom advocate for 'small government'. I find that a contradiction.
 
I love it. We can't sustain managing this downturn in our economy because we are already an overextended empire. And, some people want us to spend spend spend to get to the moon again so that we can spend spend spend to try and increase and sustain an even bigger empire. Cute.

I wonder what the British would have to say about that ;)
 
In light of the sentiment you often endorse, arguing for government intervention... on the moon... is quite stunning. In an attempt to stay consistent, how about we wait until the private sector has the means in which to fully fund the notions expressed in previous posts? You know, let the free market work.

Something tells me if the federal government were to subsidize such an endeavor, you would be one of the first to complain about "intrusion/intervention". ;)

Spot on. It's totally, philosophically a contradiction.

Let private investors collaborate if this is such an economically worthy endeavor.
 
If anything is profitable, then Private enterprises will find, and exploit it. --so far, travel is the only thing that is deemed cost effective by Private investors. and they gamble with their own money--Not mine and yours.
 
In the 1960's, the space program created many things of value. I especially liked "Tang". :mrgreen:

How about computers? The space race was instrumental in the development of computers was it not?

I say on to Mars. Been there done that with the moon. :mrgreen:
 
I love it. We can't sustain managing this downturn in our economy because we are already an overextended empire. And, some people want us to spend spend spend to get to the moon again so that we can spend spend spend to try and increase and sustain an even bigger empire. Cute.

Just in case you missed it, or maybe you're not talking about the United States, but the United States is not now, has never been, and never will be, an empire.

Perhaps you should learn what words mean before you use them? Just because you see other people using words wrongly does not excuse you from repeating their mistake.
 
Just in case you missed it, or maybe you're not talking about the United States, but the United States is not now, has never been, and never will be, an empire.

Perhaps you should learn what words mean before you use them? Just because you see other people using words wrongly does not excuse you from repeating their mistake.

Why don't you address his point instead of getting anal about his use of the world "Empire?"
 
Some of whom advocate for 'small government'. I find that a contradiction.

I"m all for "small government". We should finance the necessary and Constitutional space exploitation program by dismantling the illegal Social Security program. The net effect on government will be shrinkage.
 
I"m all for "small government". We should finance the necessary and Constitutional space exploitation program by dismantling the illegal Social Security program. The net effect on government will be shrinkage.

So take the SS money... money in which people have already paid, and spend it on space exploration. How Machiavellian of you:roll:

You are aware of the ramifications? You know, millions of retired Americans without an income to pay their bills, live out the rest of their lives.
 
So take the SS money... money in which people have already paid, and spend it on space exploration. How Machiavellian of you:roll:

You are aware of the ramifications? You know, millions of retired Americans without an income to pay their bills, live out the rest of their lives.

They should get jobs and stop being lazy socialists who take tax money from the poor discriminated rich. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
If anything is profitable, then Private enterprises will find, and exploit it. --so far, travel is the only thing that is deemed cost effective by Private investors. and they gamble with their own money--Not mine and yours.

Yup. I think if there is anything of commercial importance, it can be left to the private industry. Honestly, at lest for the time being I think the only viable sort of thing would be space tourism. There's obviously no point in trying to get to space to mine crap now because there's no way to turn a profit on it.

I'm still holding out for the space casino.
 
I'm still holding out for the space casino.

Or hash bars on the moon. This would provide a whole new meaning to... getting high:mrgreen:
 
How about computers? The space race was instrumental in the development of computers was it not?

I say on to Mars. Been there done that with the moon. :mrgreen:
Tang was from 1957, and there is no need to go into Space in order to build a computer. Mar will be much more expensive than the Moon. (We pay for this with our Tax dollars, remember) and has nothing we need bad enough to justify the expense. "To just go see what is there" type ventures, should be payed for, buy the people that want to go. Not me.
 
Last edited:
Spending tax dollars on space travel is unconstitutional.
 
Spending tax dollars on space travel is unconstitutional.
One could make a case that it is authorized under Article I, § 8, clause 8, I suppose.
 
Back
Top Bottom