• 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'

Robots can't do everything. They can't build spaceships or collect energy.

Why not they practically build all the cars on Earth now.



There are a lot of rare heavy metals in those asteroids.

Rock on Man

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGwn_0k_TQo&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- Heavy Metal Movie Trailer[/nomedia]
 
I would happily keep NASA funded and bump up the NPS budget by a few million before I'd want the on going health care entitlement program whose expenses trump both of them.

I actually think the protection and maintaining of our national parks IS something the federal government is best suited to do as it is federal land and important to culture and history to maintain these areas.

I can't give you an either or with NASA and the Parks because I think both are reasonable government actions, plus the hypothetical falls through when you realize its NOT just one or the other on those but there's numerous other portions of the budget and government that could be looked at.

To continue our discussion a bit, you might remember that one of the reasons I gave for not liking the health care bill that eventually passed is that now was not the right time for such spending. For that same reason, I don't have a problem with funding for NASA or Interior to be down currently. Deficit spending to recover from a recession is a standard tool in the toolbox for such situations. The problem being that since we were heavily deficit spending going into the recession, it has put spending levels at, to my mind, and unacceptable level. Now we have a situation where I will support just about any cut in spending, even for programs I do like. I think the only place I would not cut spending is education, simply because that is too vital to our future.
 
Why not they practically build all the cars on Earth now.

That is not accurate. They assist is some areas of building a car, but not even most of the building. Almost all the assembly work is done by people, and some of the fabrication.
 
To continue our discussion a bit, you might remember that one of the reasons I gave for not liking the health care bill that eventually passed is that now was not the right time for such spending. For that same reason, I don't have a problem with funding for NASA or Interior to be down currently. Deficit spending to recover from a recession is a standard tool in the toolbox for such situations. The problem being that since we were heavily deficit spending going into the recession, it has put spending levels at, to my mind, and unacceptable level. Now we have a situation where I will support just about any cut in spending, even for programs I do like. I think the only place I would not cut spending is education, simply because that is too vital to our future.

I thought deficit spending was suppose to help us recover from a recession.
 
That is not accurate. They assist is some areas of building a car, but not even most of the building. Almost all the assembly work is done by people, and some of the fabrication.

A fully robotic plant for assembling other robots could be feasible on the moon.

Robots making robots.....be afraid very afraid
 
Solar panels came from the space program.
That's right, and any leaps in technology there would likely come from NASA. Buying more current solar panels on govt money is not advancing the science.
 
Going to the moon in the 60's was merely the destination, the trip along the way was where we benefitted.
 
I thought deficit spending was suppose to help us recover from a recession.

That is at least the theory. Some argue otherwise, but I think most agree it is a tool to use for that. A couple caveats to that: Not all deficit spending(actually just spending) is equal, and you have to measure the benefit to the cost. I don't think NASA would measure highly in that type of measurement. Also, at some point, the harm caused by the spending outweighs the good it does I believe(no clue as to where that point is to be honest though), which is why when the economy is good, it is important to balance the budget. Then, when times are bad, you can deficit spend without worrying about it hurting the country long term.

Think of it like this, in grossly oversimplified and probably not 100 % accurate terms. If you put money away every week from your paycheck and keep your credit cards paid off and bills paid on time, then when you lose your job, it hurts, but you got some cushion. You can tap your savings for awhile, you got room on your credit cards, you can be late on some payments without the a big deal. However, if you live paycheck to paycheck, don't put money away, keep your cards maxed, tend to be late on payments...now when you lose your income, you are screwed.
 
A fully robotic plant for assembling other robots could be feasible on the moon.

Robots making robots.....be afraid very afraid

Nah, I have read Asimov. Robots no scare me.

Edit: Get this...the spell checker recognizes Asimov as a correct spelling. You know you are famous when your last name is included in spell checkers.
 
What is accomplished by going to the moon? We should take that money and invest in solar power research, and other fuel alternatives.

I agree with this too. I'm just not sure what exploring space is really going to do to help us. Sure, it's cool, but I consider it an "extracurricular", if you will. We don't NEED to. It's not a pressing concern that will help our economy.
 
i missed the part where the astronauts explained exactly what it is we were expected to accomplish by proceeding with project constellation
anyone care to identify what the actual objective was?
 
Link


Looks like the big gun has taken aim at Obama. Obama is a moron.

Ah, to be able to simplify issues to the point that thought is uneccesary....

I believe I'll wait for Obama's Canaveral speech to weigh in on this, except to say that Bush's half-assed plan for NASA derailed real progress, which now has to be made up somehow. A seamless progression of manned orbital vehicles should have been anticipated and budgeted in the early 2000's, instead we have the shuttle retiring with nothing to follow it.
 
Not all deficit spending(actually just spending) is equal, and you have to measure the benefit to the cost. I don't think NASA would measure highly in that type of measurement.

I take issue with this. The scientists, administrators, astronauts etc all earn good salaries and pay back into the economy. The fabricators and equipment manufacturers likewise. These are good jobs that NASA spending is supporting. We don't want all of our deficit spending to support road crews and McDonald's do we?
 
All of you doubting the benefits of the space program have no idea the variety of advances and products produced by the space program, do you?
 
To me, going to the moon, at this point in time, is akin to taking a round the world trip on your credit card right before you declare bankruptcy.
 
I take issue with this. The scientists, administrators, astronauts etc all earn good salaries and pay back into the economy. The fabricators and equipment manufacturers likewise. These are good jobs that NASA spending is supporting. We don't want all of our deficit spending to support road crews and McDonald's do we?

I agree that these people contribute I think there talents can be better utilized at this point in time though than going to the moon again.
 
I agree that these people contribute I think there talents can be better utilized at this point in time though than going to the moon again.

What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.
 
What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.

So, just because some people are highly trained in a specialized field, the government must keep them employed at taxpayer expense?

There are plenty of private companies launching satellites. If more complex space operations show economic promise, investors will back them.
 
They aren't hiring.

Then they'd better get in a retraining program, just like thousands of former factory workers have had to do...
 
All of you doubting the benefits of the space program have no idea the variety of advances and products produced by the space program, do you?

the spin offs from the space program are many. i was one of those who heeded JFK's call to pursue a career in engineering after sputnik. NASA is consistently the highest rated agency in government to work for in surveys of federal employees. all of that to say i support advancements in space, but recognize that any program NASA undertakes needs to have a credible, defined mission. i cannot identify one for project constellation. but change my mind; explain what it was
 
Entitlements are so wonderful for this country. Help the people who can't help themselves is fine. Help the people who could otherwise help themselves (rich old people) is wrong. Put out of work some of our finest engineers doing truly original and explorative work is a crime.
 
What is the purpose of putting another man on the moon?

IMO, Armstrong's concerns touch on a fundamental issue that extends beyond the space program, namely what should be the appropriate balance between fiscal expenditures that are largely expenses (no future benefit) vs. those that are largely investments (have long-term benefits)?

While it might be tempting for policy makers to embrace expenditures that have little future value (near-term bias is an attribute of human nature), especially as such programs typically have their own fairly sizable constituencies, sound policy should also take into consideration net long-term benefits. For example, what would be the implications for the U.S. if let's say another nation gains a qualitative edge in alternative energy? How about if another nation becomes the leader in space/space-related technologies? Either outcome would do more than impact U.S. living standards/growth vis-a-vis those other states. There would also be fiscal and national security implications.

In the context of the nation's fiscal challenges, investments on education, science, etc., are not the reason the nation is facing those challenges. Seeking better performance with respect to those investments is, of course, prudent. However, the core problem of structural deficits lies with the tax code/mandatory spending programs. Hence, if the nation is to address its structural fiscal deficits, it needs to focus on the source of the problem. Trimming investments that are not the source of the problem won't accomplish much. However, such moves could cede potentially sizable long-term benefits. Reduced competitiveness in tomorrow's growth industries could translate into reduced economic growth. In turn, that would mean fewer jobs created, lower incomes, less tax revenue, etc., than would otherwise be the case. In short, the nation could wind up saving very little in the short-term (and that misplaced focus could actually delay the necessary task of addressing the cause of the nation's fiscal imbalances) all the while sacrificing long-term benefits.

In fact, in its recent report on fiscal consolidation, the International Monetary Fund advised that nations reducing expenditures avoid disproportionately cutting investments that have long-term benefit. Instead, the IMF advised that countries focus on the causes of their primary structural deficits.
 
Back
Top Bottom