• 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!

Space programs and their support among the population [W:91]

Your stance on space programs

  • I'm an American and I consider NASA a priority

    Votes: 36 63.2%

  • I'm an American and I don't consider space programs a priority

    Votes: 12 21.1%

  • I'm an American and I want more international coop (NASA + ESA + other)

    Votes: 19 33.3%

  • I'm an European and I consider ESA a priority

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • I'm an European and I want more international coop

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • I'm an European and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm Russian and I want more for Roscosmos

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • I'm Russian and I want more cooperation

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • I'm Russian and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm (other) and herp derp, I leave comment

    Votes: 4 7.0%
  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
MoSurveyor said:
Do you expect private industry to take over LEO deliveries and advance our presence there? If so, then you already have your answer. Though that's far from the only answer, it's most likely the only one you'll recognize without a protracted argument and, quit frankly, after 50 years of arguing with you people I'm sick of it.
Click to expand...
So why did you respond if you're tired of arguing with "you people"?
Again, the NASA program should only manage satellites. There is no purpose to deliver anything or have a presence in Low Earth Orbit other than satellite management. Satellites are so embedded into the culture of our world that we need NASA for that purpose. I would offer, however, that it could be paired down considerably if and when the private industry (besides Space X) shows an interest in offering that service for a fee. It is much cheaper for a private company to pay for the upkeep, training of personnel, etc and the US gov't to only pay for the service as needed.
 
Utility Man said:
Sorry then, I must have misinterpreted this earlier statement:
Click to expand...
NASA discovered Earth? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the human beings who lived on it before NASA existed did? Your post proves my point. What has NASA produced besides "ooo ahh" pictures? And your counterpoint is to post an "ooo ahh" picture? Well played sir.:shock:
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

:roll: Exactly...

Talk about lack of intelligence.
Click to expand...

We were talking about you...

Have much trouble with reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

Not at all... nor are you able to display any.

The second paragraph was all about your supposed personal relation to those projects.
Click to expand...

My personal relationship is two family members... one that is extremely significant.

Yours? You personal relationship IS THE INTERNET. :lol:

You have no evidence, nor can you present any evidence, that any of your family members ever did anything at all except have you.
Click to expand...

You seriously expect me to present my family members name? One who contracts out to NASA and the s[ace division of the Air Force, to the Pentagon, etc, about Electro optics, detectors, etc.?

Dude, you are arguing like a tool for no reason AND THAT ALONE displays your ability...
 
MarineTpartier said:
Again, the NASA program should only manage satellites. There is no purpose to deliver anything or have a presence in Low Earth Orbit other than satellite management. Satellites are so embedded into the culture of our world that we need NASA for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what my family member has stated... one who assuredly has more experience in this subject than Mo has in ANY subject.
 
Bodhisattva said:
How the hell does that negate my statement? It doesn't. It just shows ignorance. My family member is at the forefront of electro optic research... primarily detectors. Want to know how light energy trasfers from a light wave into an image that we are able to see on a screen? Thank my family member because if it was left up to some of the people on this site we would still be using 8-Tracks.
Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:
Well I'm not one of those people. I support science and education every chance I get.


And, honestly, I don't care what you say about your family. This is the Internet. You have no proof nor reason for me to believe you other than my opinion of you, which is going downhill fast.
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
Good. Helps me differentiate the intelligent from those that lack it... think what you will. Believe the "Internet"! :lol:

That alone shows your ... anyway... sorry buddy.
Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:
:lamo
Talk about lack of intelligence. Have much trouble with reading comprehension? The second paragraph was all about your supposed personal relation to those projects. You have no evidence, nor can you present any evidence, that any of your family members ever did anything at all except have you.
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
:roll: Exactly...



We were talking about you...



Not at all... nor are you able to display any.



My personal relationship is two family members... one that is extremely significant.

Yours? You personal relationship IS THE INTERNET. :lol:



You seriously expect me to present my family members name? One who contracts out to NASA and the s[ace division of the Air Force, to the Pentagon, etc, about Electro optics, detectors, etc.?

Dude, you are arguing like a tool for no reason AND THAT ALONE displays your ability...
Click to expand...

8l7AR.jpg
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
OK, I've levied a couple of thread bans. Anyone else?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Doesn't matter how efficient you use fossil fuels...we WILL eventually run out. There's a reason that they call it "non-renewable". And I'm not just talking about energy. I'm talking about materials also. To think that this planet will sustain humanity indefinately is very bad thinking. Because it won't. And I personally would find a life in space VERY fullfilling.
Click to expand...

If we can invent a self sustaining energy source or method of travel that allows us to travel to other solar systems, especially for billions of people, than I think any resource crisis on Earth would be solved.

In any reality, a Malthusian catastrophe would just self correct the human population to whatever would feasibly colonise out there.
 
Rainman05 said:
I'm noticing a trend in the results.

1. A lot of americans who want space programs don't want more cooperation with other space agencies. This is quite disheartening since the ESA has worked with NASA on several programs, including the world famous, Hubble telescope. And much more. Would some americans who voted for that option express a point as to why would you be isolationists in this regard?

2. very few people from Europe or Russia or other places commenting and voting here :(.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't mind working with them so much. But I just think the US should lead the Way. :2usflag:
 
MarineTpartier said:
NASA discovered Earth? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the human beings who lived on it before NASA existed did? Your post proves my point. What has NASA produced besides "ooo ahh" pictures? And your counterpoint is to post an "ooo ahh" picture? Well played sir.:shock:
Click to expand...

Well I was trying to keep it simple or you, the first picture was one I figured even a grammar school student could understand.

But since you asked again about NASAs doings while you claim to be a US marine, maybe this will help you out(pictorial wise):

120925-M-PD728-605.JPG


120925-M-PD728-458.JPG

8th Comm. Marines prepare for upcoming deployment > II Marine Expeditionary Force > News Article
sight-alignment_100809-a-6225g-065a.png

Sight Alignment | OUT On The Porch


Have a nice life.
 
Utility Man said:
Well I was trying to keep it simple or you, the first picture was one I figured even a grammar school student could understand.

But since you asked again about NASAs doings while you claim to be a US marine, maybe this will help you out(pictorial wise):

120925-M-PD728-605.JPG


120925-M-PD728-458.JPG

8th Comm. Marines prepare for upcoming deployment > II Marine Expeditionary Force > News Article
sight-alignment_100809-a-6225g-065a.png

Sight Alignment | OUT On The Porch


Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

And, once again, you reinforce the FACT that NASA does not produce anything from it's trips to space. Nothing is discovered when they get there that benefits us. Maybe you can't read. I plainly said that NASA produces things that we can use, however, most of those things would have been discovered and produced anyway out of necessity. Once again, as I've said to others on this website who engage in intelligent debate and actually read my counterpoints instead of simply putting their head in the sand, NASA has a place in the satellite management and repair area. However, none of our galavanting in space has produced a single discovery that has benefitted mankind. NASA has simply kept itself relevant by the old bait and switch technique. It goes something like this: People such as yourself: "What have you discovered in space that we can use?" NASA "Hey, look at this cool velcro!" People such as yourself "Hey cool!!" (wanders away sticking and unsticking velcro over and over).

PS The servicemembers at the bottom are US Army, not Marines. Get it right Ruskie.
 
MarineTpartier said:
And, once again, you reinforce the FACT that NASA does not produce anything from it's trips to space. Nothing is discovered when they get there that benefits us. Maybe you can't read. I plainly said that NASA produces things that we can use, however, most of those things would have been discovered and produced anyway out of necessity. Once again, as I've said to others on this website who engage in intelligent debate and actually read my counterpoints instead of simply putting their head in the sand, NASA has a place in the satellite management and repair area. However, none of our galavanting in space has produced a single discovery that has benefitted mankind. NASA has simply kept itself relevant by the old bait and switch technique. It goes something like this: People such as yourself: "What have you discovered in space that we can use?" NASA "Hey, look at this cool velcro!" People such as yourself "Hey cool!!" (wanders away sticking and unsticking velcro over and over).

PS The servicemembers at the bottom are US Army, not Marines. Get it right Ruskie.
Click to expand...

Except that your arguement falls flat for the simple fact that it was NASA that invented those things that they did. No one else did. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean anything compared to facts or reality. Could other companies, countries have invented the things that NASA has? Sure, just about anything is possible. But they didn't. NASA did. You can discount any company or country or any other accomplishment with such an arguement as yours. But your arguement just ignores what actually HAS happened.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that your arguement falls flat for the simple fact that it was NASA that invented those things that they did. No one else did. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean anything compared to facts or reality. Could other companies, countries have invented the things that NASA has? Sure, just about anything is possible. But they didn't. NASA did. You can discount any company or country or any other accomplishment with such an arguement as yours. But your arguement just ignores what actually HAS happened.
Click to expand...

Warfare also produces technology and innovation. That has no bearing on whether the intended and direct outcome for war are beneficial or not.
 
Ben K. said:
If we can invent a self sustaining energy source or method of travel that allows us to travel to other solar systems, especially for billions of people, than I think any resource crisis on Earth would be solved.
Click to expand...

I agree. But this is never going to happen unless we aim for and work on it. Sitting back and waiting for the resources to run out before trying for these things will just condemn us to certain extinction.

Ben K. said:
In any reality, a Malthusian catastrophe would just self correct the human population to whatever would feasibly colonise out there.
Click to expand...

Assuming that such a Catastrophe actually happens. And even then what resources have already been spent are gone. No getting them back unless several million years pass without using any of the non-renewable (and even some renewable as they contribute to making the non-reneable) resources. So you better hope such a castastrophe doesn't happen. Because we may not get a second chance.
 
Ben K. said:
Warfare also produces technology and innovation. That has no bearing on whether the intended and direct outcome for war are beneficial or not.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with his arguement or my rebuttle? I could have sworn that we were not talking about the causes of what leads to various inventions but about what actually has happened vs what shoulda coulda woulda happened.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What has this got to do with his arguement or my rebuttle? I could have sworn that we were not talking about the causes of what leads to various inventions but about what actually has happened vs what shoulda coulda woulda happened.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out that the comparison applies to military spending - that the most common argument on this thread for spending is unintended consequences of R&D on civilian life rather than what the main point of the endeavour is. In the case of a military we have the simple mission statement of defense, with NASA it's "what's in space".
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree. But this is never going to happen unless we aim for and work on it. Sitting back and waiting for the resources to run out before trying for these things will just condemn us to certain extinction.
Click to expand...

We don't have to aim for interstellar travel to solve any resource crisis in any near term. We can just focus that money on the domestic problem.

Assuming that such a Catastrophe actually happens. And even then what resources have already been spent are gone. No getting them back unless several million years pass without using any of the non-renewable (and even some renewable as they contribute to making the non-reneable) resources. So you better hope such a castastrophe doesn't happen. Because we may not get a second chance.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe pressure to innovate drives innovation. Hoping for spin-off solutions to an identifiable problem by dreamily aiming for the stars which we are under no pressure to do rather than directly looking at the problem may take away our second chance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that your arguement falls flat for the simple fact that it was NASA that invented those things that they did. No one else did. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean anything compared to facts or reality. Could other companies, countries have invented the things that NASA has? Sure, just about anything is possible. But they didn't. NASA did. You can discount any company or country or any other accomplishment with such an arguement as yours. But your arguement just ignores what actually HAS happened.
Click to expand...
What HAS actually happened during NASA's primary function, space travel? Nothing. That's what. Cool pictures though :2razz:
I'll use a football analogy. If you have a quarterback who leads his team mates, ensures everyone on the offense is set correctly, stays after practice working with receivers, and makes sure players are respectful of coaches but can't throw the football, what happens to that quarterback? He goes away. Sure, all of that other stuff is nice but someone else that actually performs their job could do it just as well. NASA needs to go away. The only useful function they perform is satellite tracking and maintenance and Space X is showing the capability to even do that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
What in the world does that have to do with the fact that the US Space Program is worthless? Or was that just your pitiful attempt at baiting me? Bait fail
Click to expand...

You said that the bridge to nowhere was worthless. Just reminding you who authorized it.
 
Goshin said:
A variety of variables have been plugged into the "Drake Equations" to estimate how many sapient technological civilizations might exist at this moment in the galaxy... but most top scientists and futurists admit it is all speculation because we lack the data to do more than make wild guesses.

Also, planets with some level of life may be far more common than planets with INTELLIGENT life...
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Sapient civilzations? do you mean sincient technologies?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Yeah, just like the Nautilus was impossible - and men on the moon! LOL!

Verne's ideas were scoffed at, too, but it took less than 100 years for some of them to come true. That's the thing about science, you never know what's over the next hill. The trick is to keep moving forward.

Not to sound too picky but isn't it 6 ly? Alpha Centari is the closest at 4.2 ly.
Click to expand...

I do not believe so. But I could be wrong. In any event there is a star system only 3.4 LYs out.
 
Ben K. said:
No, I'm pointing out that the comparison applies to military spending - that the most common argument on this thread for spending is unintended consequences of R&D on civilian life rather than what the main point of the endeavour is. In the case of a military we have the simple mission statement of defense, with NASA it's "what's in space".
Click to expand...

And each of those unintended consequences are bringing us closer to our goal of reaching beyond the confines of our planet. You didn't really think that going into space would be simple did you? And its a hell of a lot more of a peaceful endeavor than killing each other. What has War contributed to peace and expansion of the human race?
 
Ben K. said:
We don't have to aim for interstellar travel to solve any resource crisis in any near term. We can just focus that money on the domestic problem.
Click to expand...

Thinking only about near term solutions is nothing more than putting a bandaid on a 10 inch cut on your head. True success is about thinking long term.

Ben K. said:
Actually, I believe pressure to innovate drives innovation. Hoping for spin-off solutions to an identifiable problem by dreamily aiming for the stars which we are under no pressure to do rather than directly looking at the problem may take away our second chance.
Click to expand...

Spin-offs are nice, but they are just that, spin-offs. Unintended consequences of trying to accomplish something else. So "hoping for spin-off solutions to an identifiable problem" is not what is happening. But spin-offs are good because they show that accomplishments are happening and that we are getting closer and closer to our ultimate goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom