• 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!

Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

Gray_Fox_86 said:
I think its important to have government spending, but the point of the government is to look out for the welfare of its people. And I don't see how the government thinks its beneficial to feed & clothe & provide healthcare to people who don't deserve it. Why do they deserve it? Because they are lazy and they don't want to work but want to live a good life? I'm sorry to say but you deserve what you earn and those people taking welfare payments are a giant prick on the backs of taxpayers. They don't need the living standard they have now and really it isn't so hard to feed yourself and family there are so many items that cost a dollar or less that a family of five can live off of without government assistance. This whole country was founded on the individual success with a responsible government. But now people don't want to work because they know the government will give them more money for not working than if they worked a minimum paid job. Does that make sense? That you earn more money for not working than you do working?
Also the NASA budget is 17.6B dollars and that makes up less than half a percentage point of what the Federal government spends. Back when we were doing Apollo 11 and stuff NASAs budget was 25B(adjusted for inflation) a year and that made up 2.5% of what the federal government spent. You see the federal government never gave much money to NASA in the first place, if we currently gave NASA 2.5% of what the Feds spend then I am sure we already would have intersteller travel or at least it would have been possible to travel to the moon as a vacation site. Cutting NASAs budget won't do anything in balancing the budget, its only going to set things far back for our achievements. And another thing if you think Obama is a good president then why isn't he transparent and whatever happened to Gitmo? The guy sucks and knowing the American people who voted for Bush twice, the people will vote for Obama twice and it will be a very big mistake.
Click to expand...

You just proved Redress's point exactly.

You're okay with the government spending...just on things you want. Maybe other people value welfare and think the space program is a waste of money. Is there any reason why their belief is less valid than yours?
 
Moon said:
I'll give you a hint. It's pretty much accepted that the human race began in Africa.

I don't live in Africa. Do you? We've survived this long by moving, and being willing to move, to areas that are more advantageous to our continued survival. The next step in that process is pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Obvious, but not attainable within the next thousand years or so...
 
Kelzie said:
Damn. Just...damn. That is quite frankly the most assinine thing I have ever heard. I mean if it's interfering with new research so much, just BOX IT UP! Why do we give them tax dollars to destroy research that our tax dollars pay for?
Click to expand...

Kelzie, this is the first not so smart thing I have ever read in one of your posts....
IF it was destroyed, it was done so the engineers and scientists could develop it again. Job security....got it now...? :2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
Kelzie, this is the first not so smart thing I have ever read in one of your posts....
IF it was destroyed, it was done so the engineers and scientists could develop it again. Job security....got it now...? :2razz:
Click to expand...

:lol: I work for the government. I understand completely.
 
Kelzie said:
You just proved Redress's point exactly.

You're okay with the government spending...just on things you want. Maybe other people value welfare and think the space program is a waste of money. Is there any reason why their belief is less valid than yours?
Click to expand...

Not on things I want. On things we need. We don't need to provide food and homes for everyone, that is unnecessary. We do need to have a foundation for the advancement of the sciences. That is necessary much more than trying to cure human misery which is impossible to cure. It isn't about spending on things I want but about what we need.
 
reefedjib said:
We can have a permanently manned base on the moon, without the severity of zero-G, that would only need 1/4 (or less - 1/6, not sure) of the lift capability to get to earth orbit.
Click to expand...

But how do we get the payload to the moon?
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Not on things I want. On things we need. We don't need to provide food and homes for everyone, that is unnecessary. We do need to have a foundation for the advancement of the sciences. That is necessary much more than trying to cure human misery which is impossible to cure. It isn't about spending on things I want but about what we need.
Click to expand...

We do not need it. We need a military for self defense. We need our roads, police and firemen. Practically any kind of research (I can think of a few exceptions in "what if" scenarios) is a luxury. On what basis do you say we need to build a base on the moon?
 
reefedjib said:
Wrong analogy. You must not understand Newton's Laws.
Click to expand...

'splain it to us, Lucy.....
I want to know why hauling stuff to the moon and staging it for future launch to earth orbit is saving any fuel...
 
Kelzie said:
We do not need it. We need a military for self defense. We need our roads, police and firemen. Practically any kind of research (I can think of a few exceptions in "what if" scenarios) is a luxury. On what basis do you say we need to build a base on the moon?
Click to expand...
Yes we do. I say it on the basis that one of the most important things for the government to do alongside with protecting its people from criminals and foreign armies. Is to have an establishment for research and technological advancment that the private sector cannot do do to limited resources. The government is the only one capable enough of having the resources for figuring out how to develop spaceships and how to make satellites that can travel through space and spend data back to earth.
The government is the only institution that can fund projects that will eventually help all of the people in this nation and the world.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Yes we do. I say it on the basis that one of the most important things for the government to do alongside with protecting its people from criminals and foreign armies. Is to have an establishment for research and technological advancment that the private sector cannot do do to limited resources. The government is the only one capable enough of having the resources for figuring out how to develop spaceships and how to make satellites that can travel through space and spend data back to earth.
The government is the only institution that can fund projects that will eventually help all of the people in this nation and the world.
Click to expand...

In what world do you live on where the private sector has limited resources and the government has unlimited? Maybe the space program will help you find some place like that. :mrgreen:

Helping people is nice. It is not a necessity.
 
UtahBill said:
But how do we get the payload to the moon?
Click to expand...

UtahBill said:
'splain it to us, Lucy.....
I want to know why hauling stuff to the moon and staging it for future launch to earth orbit is saving any fuel...
Click to expand...

Don't call me Lucy.

Easy, we launch payload to the moon from earth, spending the full amount of lift capability to do so. Then we launch multiple missions from the moon only spending 1/4 each time. This does not work for raw materials that can only be used once, including fuel. It does work for manned missions.
 
Kelzie said:
In what world do you live on where the private sector has limited resources and the government has unlimited? Maybe the space program will help you find some place like that. :mrgreen:

Helping people is nice. It is not a necessity.
Click to expand...

WOMAN, I meant that the private sector is run by corporations with a budget. They cannot spend the amounts of money the government can on research. Buidling a satellite does not only include the materials a lot of work goes into it.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
WOMAN, I meant that the private sector is run by corporations with a budget. They cannot spend the amounts of money the government can on research. Buidling a satellite does not only include the materials a lot of work goes into it.
Click to expand...

I understand how R&D works within a corporation. Many sectors spend a large percentage of their budget on it. If it was to vital to mankind, they'd pay for it. Look at medical research, arguably much more beneficial to mankind. The medical industry pays for most of it, because they know that people need new drugs. If the scientific industries thought that people needed and would pay for space exploration, you can bet they'd be paying for it. But since the benefit to humans is indirect and mostly educational, very few people would pay for such research.

I actually do think the government should fund it...eventually. But it's mostly for the cool factor.
 
reefedjib said:
Don't call me Lucy.

Easy, we launch payload to the moon from earth, spending the full amount of lift capability to do so. Then we launch multiple missions from the moon only spending 1/4 each time. This does not work for raw materials that can only be used once, including fuel. It does work for manned missions.
Click to expand...

got it not-lucy

that 100 pound payload we launched from cape Kennedy goes to the moon

then we re-launch it as the equivalent of 25 pounds once again

so, we have now incurred the cost to launch 125 pounds to move 100 pounds to its ulitmate destination

with that kind of math you should work for AIG in its derivatives department
 
justabubba said:
got it not-lucy

that 100 pound payload we launched from cape Kennedy goes to the moon

then we re-launch it as the equivalent of 25 pounds once again

so, we have now incurred the cost to launch 125 pounds to move 100 pounds to its ulitmate destination

with that kind of math you should work for AIG in its derivatives department
Click to expand...

Did you miss where I specified multiple missions from the moon?
 
reefedjib said:
Did you miss where I specified multiple missions from the moon?
Click to expand...

what i missed is where you pointed out the math to represent the resulting savings

i won't hold my breath
 
justabubba said:
got it not-lucy

that 100 pound payload we launched from cape Kennedy goes to the moon

then we re-launch it as the equivalent of 25 pounds once again

so, we have now incurred the cost to launch 125 pounds to move 100 pounds to its ulitmate destination

with that kind of math you should work for AIG in its derivatives department
Click to expand...

not to mention the expensive warehousing of future project material that gets staged on the moon...:2razz:
 
justabubba said:
what i missed is where you pointed out the math to represent the resulting savings

i won't hold my breath
Click to expand...

Why don't you just ask me instead of being obnoxious? There is a difference between deadlift of fuel, O2, food, and water versus a manned mission. Deadlist requires a rocket and simple bulk payload. Manned mission requires a re-entry vehicle and all the lifesupport, etc. You ship one manned mission to the moon, and multiple deadlift missions to supply. You can then stage multiple manned missions to earth orbit at a fraction of the cost.
 
UtahBill said:
not to mention the expensive warehousing of future project material that gets staged on the moon...:2razz:
Click to expand...

Those materials can be stored outside a lifesupport facility.
 
Kelzie said:
What did I miss? I think he was joking about that Lucy thing.
Click to expand...

It's the baiting and confrontational attitude. It had nada to do with the Lucy comment. It was the "I won't be holding my breath" comment. It is not fun having a discussion with those who practice such things.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Why don't you just ask me instead of being obnoxious? There is a difference between deadlift of fuel, O2, food, and water versus a manned mission. Deadlist requires a rocket and simple bulk payload. Manned mission requires a re-entry vehicle and all the lifesupport, etc. You ship one manned mission to the moon, and multiple deadlift missions to supply. You can then stage multiple manned missions to earth orbit at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't a staging platform in geosynchronous orbit be significantly cheaper than staging on the moon? What does the moon provide aside from gravity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom