• 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!

NASA is hoping to hand International Space Station over to a commercial entity

Space X has done more in a few years than NASA has done in the last thirty so yes, they are game changers.

We can go to Mars now if we wanted to. NASA has been dragging its heels because of budget problems and politics. Great leaps in science are not cooked up by massive government agencies, but by the market. Government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

What the **** has space X done that is so revolutionary?
 
Nope. The time scales and financial scales are too large for private industry to start it up. They can, like they will do in this case, take over from infrastructure established. But it will be excessively difficult for private industry to start up a colonization or exploration (beyond drones, which we've already done) program completely unaided.

Science is one of those things that has huge start up costs and long, long time lag between the development and payout. There's a reason why things such as Bell Labs no longer exist. The financial and temporal scales are too large for private business to handle properly.

It's too bad that NASA is at the point that it must get rid of it's ISS. I would much rather we spend money on science and engineering than blowing up brown people in the ME ad nauseam. In terms of space travel and exploration, that's going to need to be done on the government level. Only government have the money and stability to invest in decade long projects to advance base science and understanding. Once the infrastructure is made, once the initial R&D is done, there will be a lot private industry can do to develop the science and engineering for profit. But they need to leap-frog from the initial investment of science and engineering. Without that initial push, it's far too expensive to be profitable.

Right now we have a few eccentric companies trying for something, such SpaceX. But to truly advance our technology and capabilities, government will be necessary to produce the base science and R&D.

See, I would rather spend the money on things the govt is actually supposed to be doing, like protecting us from enemies. Also, the govt isnt the only who has the money. In fact, they dont even HAVE money. They take it from us. Which means WE have the money. We just dont want to spend 400million on a probe to some planet that doesnt matter. Furthermore, private investment in science has brought us far more results than govt ever has. Govt didnt invent flight. Private citizens did. US companies spend nearly 200 billion a year on research.
 
No but seriously, R&D and space exploration will not happen under the quarterly profit model. The turnaround is too far away and there's no guarantee of a good return.

Sure it will, when there is profit to be made.
 
See, I would rather spend the money on things the govt is actually supposed to be doing, like protecting us from enemies. Also, the govt isnt the only who has the money. In fact, they dont even HAVE money. They take it from us. Which means WE have the money. We just dont want to spend 400million on a probe to some planet that doesnt matter. Furthermore, private investment in science has brought us far more results than govt ever has. Govt didnt invent flight. Private citizens did. US companies spend nearly 200 billion a year on research.

This is spoken like one who knows nothing of science. Back in the day, there was quite a bit that was discovered through private lab and individual. And to this day, some of that remains true. But the time scales and financial scales are far too large now for base scientific research and that is what is needed for the further advancement of science. Private companies take what is discovered in government labs and academia and then develop that into something economical and with commercial value, but they can no longer do the base. Too much money, too long of a time to be profitable. Scientific advancement cannot halt just because private business ran its course and can no longer be relied upon to advance it.

Sending probes into space does matter, it lets us know about our solar system and universe and help us to understand some of the laws of nature, the very laws that can lead to break throughs that can latter be developed by private enterprise. Furthermore, we need to. The entire history of mankind has been that of scientific advancement and understanding, it's what our species does. Well that, and destroy, and who knows what sorts of weapons you can eventually create if we just know the right things. If you're so interested in killing over creating (I'm not).

NASA has brought us grand understanding and huge advacements in technology, academia and government research has laid the bedrock upon which private enterprise can research and refine technologies that are ultimately brought to the consumer. But the base is too expensive for it to be done alone. Do you think that private business would have invested in Bose-Einstein Condensation? Neutrino oscillations? Particle physics? Gravitation waves and lensing? Optical combs? Laser Cooling and Trapping?

No..they do not have the time, they do not have the money, they would not know until much further than after the fact if something could even be profitable. They are driven by profit and profit alone. It's not a bad thing, we need that dynamic too (which is why we have both government and private enterprise), but it brings with it limitations. And one of those limitations is that private business can no longer perform the base research necessary to advance science and technology.

So yes, private individuals laid the basis for powered flight, but they didn't create lasers, they didn't discover the Higgs, they didn't discover atomic clocks or even GPS, they didn't discover relativity or radioactivity, etc.

Time scales, financial scales. These must be considered if you wish to have private business handle something, and for base research and scientific progress, they do not have the means.
 
This is spoken like one who knows nothing of science. Back in the day, there was quite a bit that was discovered through private lab and individual. And to this day, some of that remains true. But the time scales and financial scales are far too large now for base scientific research and that is what is needed for the further advancement of science. Private companies take what is discovered in government labs and academia and then develop that into something economical and with commercial value, but they can no longer do the base. Too much money, too long of a time to be profitable. Scientific advancement cannot halt just because private business ran its course and can no longer be relied upon to advance it.

Sending probes into space does matter, it lets us know about our solar system and universe and help us to understand some of the laws of nature, the very laws that can lead to break throughs that can latter be developed by private enterprise. Furthermore, we need to. The entire history of mankind has been that of scientific advancement and understanding, it's what our species does. Well that, and destroy, and who knows what sorts of weapons you can eventually create if we just know the right things. If you're so interested in killing over creating (I'm not).

NASA has brought us grand understanding and huge advacements in technology, academia and government research has laid the bedrock upon which private enterprise can research and refine technologies that are ultimately brought to the consumer. But the base is too expensive for it to be done alone. Do you think that private business would have invested in Bose-Einstein Condensation? Neutrino oscillations? Particle physics? Gravitation waves and lensing? Optical combs? Laser Cooling and Trapping?

No..they do not have the time, they do not have the money, they would not know until much further than after the fact if something could even be profitable. They are driven by profit and profit alone. It's not a bad thing, we need that dynamic too (which is why we have both government and private enterprise), but it brings with it limitations. And one of those limitations is that private business can no longer perform the base research necessary to advance science and technology.

So yes, private individuals laid the basis for powered flight, but they didn't create lasers, they didn't discover the Higgs, they didn't discover atomic clocks or even GPS, they didn't discover relativity or radioactivity, etc.

Time scales, financial scales. These must be considered if you wish to have private business handle something, and for base research and scientific progress, they do not have the means.

They are the only ones who have the means. Govt does not produce anything. They only take money from those of us who do and then spend it on things we dont even want or need (mostly by paying private companies who actually have the ability. ie. Boeing, Lockheed, Intel). Thats NASA in a nutshell.
 
They are the only ones who have the means. Govt does not produce anything. They only take money from those of us who do and then spend it on things we dont even want or need (mostly by paying private companies who actually have the ability. ie. Boeing, Lockheed, Intel). Thats NASA in a nutshell.

Government is the only one with the long term stability and pocket books to invest in base science. Yes, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and a plethora of other labs do receive government grants for research. Along with the plethora of government labs such as Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, NIST, Brookhaven, etc. and most every major academic institution.

It is clear you have no clue as to what you're talking about. You don't understand scientific progress, or how it is made, or who is making it. You think that Lockheed or Raytheon would be developing tech and R&D for the government if it wasn't paid to do so? And a lot of what some of these big "independent" labs do is military work. There is no way, the only reason it's profitable on the time scales necessary for the development is because the US Government pays for it. It's not a market force, it's government.

Private enterprise does not have the abilities to perform base scientific research on its own. As I said, and you have proven my point by pointing out that some of the large government contractors make their money by being government contractors. The time scales and financial scales for scientific advancement are too great and the unknowns too numerous for private business to take it on by itself. Government must fund these in order to continually develop our technology and abilities.

Furthermore, scientific growth and technological advancement is necessary for the welfare of the People and the security of the Nation. It is, thus, in the People's and government's best interest to fund scientific research.
 
Government is the only one with the long term stability and pocket books to invest in base science. Yes, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and a plethora of other labs do receive government grants for research. Along with the plethora of government labs such as Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, NIST, Brookhaven, etc. and most every major academic institution.

It is clear you have no clue as to what you're talking about. You don't understand scientific progress, or how it is made, or who is making it. You think that Lockheed or Raytheon would be developing tech and R&D for the government if it wasn't paid to do so? And a lot of what some of these big "independent" labs do is military work. There is no way, the only reason it's profitable on the time scales necessary for the development is because the US Government pays for it. It's not a market force, it's government.

Private enterprise does not have the abilities to perform base scientific research on its own. As I said, and you have proven my point by pointing out that some of the large government contractors make their money by being government contractors. The time scales and financial scales for scientific advancement are too great and the unknowns too numerous for private business to take it on by itself. Government must fund these in order to continually develop our technology and abilities.

Furthermore, scientific growth and technological advancement is necessary for the welfare of the People and the security of the Nation. It is, thus, in the People's and government's best interest to fund scientific research.

Quit with the personal attacks or we're done.

If its necessary for the welfare of the people, then they will do it themselves. Thats how we got our quality of life. It wasnt the govt that did it. The purpose of govt is to protect rights, not to fund science. Thats why you wont find it in their listed powers. The only power listed is the power to grant protection for private invention.
 
Quit with the personal attacks or we're done.

If its necessary for the welfare of the people, then they will do it themselves. Thats how we got our quality of life. It wasnt the govt that did it. The purpose of govt is to protect rights, not to fund science. Thats why you wont find it in their listed powers. The only power listed is the power to grant protection for private invention.

There's no personal attacks, I stated nothing but facts.

The purpose of government is to provide for the general welfare of the people and security of the nation, as well as proliferating the rights of the individual. It was written down here.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Science is part of that. The advancements in technology and science help to increase the general welfare and also allow us to stay on top of the international arena. we can develop defense and weapons platform that keep us out of reach of other nations as well. Base research is currently out of reach of the private sector for the reasons already stated. In order to keep on top, the government needs to fund science and engineering.
 
Amazing how passive aggressive BS can pass for a substantive post. But really, the broad-sweeping generalization is just priceless. I mean really, I have no idea what it would actually cost for people to "take care of it themselves." Probably a lot. Good thing the government subsidized these private companies. Not that I support the use of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles for violent purposes, but they would probably be useful in space.

I believe that Lockheed Martin develops the Mark 41 for use by naval operations.
 
Last edited:
There's no personal attacks, I stated nothing but facts.

The purpose of government is to provide for the general welfare of the people and security of the nation, as well as proliferating the rights of the individual. It was written down here.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Science is part of that. The advancements in technology and science help to increase the general welfare and also allow us to stay on top of the international arena. we can develop defense and weapons platform that keep us out of reach of other nations as well. Base research is currently out of reach of the private sector for the reasons already stated. In order to keep on top, the government needs to fund science and engineering.

"It is clear you have no clue as to what you're talking about."

Not sure why so many people on this forum are unable to have a debate without being rude.
 
"It is clear you have no clue as to what you're talking about."

Not sure why so many people on this forum are unable to have a debate without being rude.

But it's clear.

OK then, we'll go the long way around

What's your degree in? Have you ever published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Do you now, or in the past, work for a scientific or high tech industry? What is your experience with the scientific community and scientific experiment?
 
But it's clear.

OK then, we'll go the long way around

What's your degree in? Have you ever published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Do you now, or in the past, work for a scientific or high tech industry? What is your experience with the scientific community and scientific experiment?

Ad hominem. Moving on then.
 
Ad hominem. Moving on then.

It's not ad hominem. Do you know what that word means? I'm establishing that you have little to no contact with the scientific community or scientific experiment. It's part and parcel. I said it was clear that you didn't know what you were talking about. You said it was rude. The questions I asked was not an attack on you, but to establish your understanding of the scientific community and research.

Can you answer it, or are you just running away?
 
It's not ad hominem. Do you know what that word means? I'm establishing that you have little to no contact with the scientific community or scientific experiment. It's part and parcel. I said it was clear that you didn't know what you were talking about. You said it was rude. The questions I asked was not an attack on you, but to establish your understanding of the scientific community and research.

Can you answer it, or are you just running away?

ad hominem

"an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

for example:
I'm establishing that you have little to no contact with the scientific community or scientific experiment.

If you dont understand that, then yes, this is over.
 
ad hominem

"an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

for example:


If you dont understand that, then yes, this is over.

It's not ad hom if it pertains to the subject being discussed. This is about scientific knowledge, understanding the scientific community, the time and financial scales of experiments, and the ability of private enterprise to take sole responsibility of scientific endeavor.

From your posts I posited that you don't know much about any of this. You said that was rude, so instead I asked you a series of questions that would evaluate this. You called it ad hom. It's not. It's directly applicable to the subject on hand.

If you don't understand that, then yes, this is over.
 
It's not ad hom if it pertains to the subject being discussed. This is about scientific knowledge, understanding the scientific community, the time and financial scales of experiments, and the ability of private enterprise to take sole responsibility of scientific endeavor.

From your posts I posited that you don't know much about any of this. You said that was rude, so instead I asked you a series of questions that would evaluate this. You called it ad hom. It's not. It's directly applicable to the subject on hand.

If you don't understand that, then yes, this is over.

Good.
 

Exactly, so my original assessment stands. On this subject, you don't really know what you are talking about. You can't just say "government doesn't produce anything" with no knowledge of the system or time scales that are involved. Truly private enterprise can develop a lot of technology and create a consumable, but they cannot perform the base science necessary for the continued expansion of knowledge and technology. The time scales are too long, the price tag too big, and the payout uncertain. Government, on the other hand, does have the stability and funding abilities to keep everything going.

In the end, there is a reason to have government and a reason to have private business. They have different goals and different abilities, and the two of them together can help push America forward and keep us on the forefront of technology and science.
 
Exactly, so my original assessment stands. On this subject, you don't really know what you are talking about. You can't just say "government doesn't produce anything" with no knowledge of the system or time scales that are involved. Truly private enterprise can develop a lot of technology and create a consumable, but they cannot perform the base science necessary for the continued expansion of knowledge and technology. The time scales are too long, the price tag too big, and the payout uncertain. Government, on the other hand, does have the stability and funding abilities to keep everything going.

In the end, there is a reason to have government and a reason to have private business. They have different goals and different abilities, and the two of them together can help push America forward and keep us on the forefront of technology and science.

Why do you keep posting? We're done since you want to start every post with an insult. Youre just talking to hear yourself talk at this point.
 
Why do you keep posting? We're done since you want to start every post with an insult. Youre just talking to hear yourself talk at this point.

Why do you keep replying with lies and slander? I've never once insulted you, merely stated facts of the system. You're just talking to hear yourself talk at this point.
 
Why do you keep replying with lies and slander? I've never once insulted you, merely stated facts of the system. You're just talking to hear yourself talk at this point.

Move on then.
 
Move on then.

Quite so...move on. This is no debate for those who are offended by facts and reply with intellectually dishonest retorts.
 

Doesn't sound like you're done....you keep responding. Are you moving along or not? If not, why don't you answer the questions I posted earlier to assess your scientific knowledge and experience?
 
No but seriously, R&D and space exploration will not happen under the quarterly profit model. The turnaround is too far away and there's no guarantee of a good return.

Humanity can afford it, we're just too busy living in playland and blowing each other up right now. The problem is social, not economic.

The only way forward is with publicly funded R&D. Space exploration has and always will require a united front.

I agree with what Northern Light said earlier, in post #22.
Even if NASA hands this over to a private entity, the operation is not likely to be very scalable. The cost of launching materials to the space station is already quite large, and the amount of physical space in the space station is relatively small.

When an organization funds space exploration, the business model is not run according to a two dimensional model of the surface of the earth. To be blunt, space exploration is 3-D, and resources are few and far between. We have not yet developed technology which would allow us to harvest extraterrestrial resources, such as minerals or water.

As far as R&D is concerned, some of the conclusions drawn from space research may impact terrestrial operations, but it's likely that they will be more related to space. No one country has sovereignty over earth's orbit, or any part of space, including the moon. Previously, our colonial powers simply established sovereignty by leveraging an amount of force over a certain region and exploiting that region's natural resources. It is not pragmatic to do either of those things in space.

As the earth orbits on its axis, different regions on the surface of the earth end up facing different regions of the galaxy. Perhaps this is part of the reason why we are in alliance with the owners of the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Wouldn't it be great if we could expand that operation without having to worry about a turnaround? As long as Putin continues to run drills in the Black and Caspian seas, I have my doubts. Infighting might be profitable in the short term, but in the long term we are wasting time.
 
Back
Top Bottom