• 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!

Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?

Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?


  • Total voters
    46

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,694
Reaction score
32,328
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?

I totally do. It’s really kind of amazing we haven’t landed on the moon in so long and, let’s face it, that has fueled some of the conspiracy theories about moon landings being hoaxes. We have much better technology now to document a moon landing and why not secure another spot in history for being the first and maybe only nation to put a women on the moon?

Attaching poll.
 
Im all for it. I heard from Nasa plans to make it a longer trip too.
 
To what end? To update the flag? 1 moon trip = billions of dollars. That's with a B.

For that kinda cash, I want there to more purpose than to just prove we could.
 
To what end? To update the flag? 1 moon trip = billions of dollars. That's with a B.

For that kinda cash, I want there to more purpose than to just prove we could.

NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said earlier this year, ‘For the first time in over 10 years, we have money in this budget for a return to the Moon with humans.

‘I’m talking human-rated landers, compatible with Gateway, that can go back and forth to the surface of the moon.

NASA plan to put the first woman on the moon by 2024
 

Meaning...making trips to the moon simpler, more frequent? Make sense, gotta be cheaper to do mars runs from the moon that earth.


As for a female astronaught on the moon? Shouldn't even be a question. Of course. Wish I was there....I'd bust out a sexist joke you literally can't use anywhere else...

During the moon walk..."My, Sally, you look GREAT! Have you lost weight?"

Ahhh, I kill me.
 
I don't support anyone else landing on the moon. It's a huge waste of money. The scientific knowledge obtainable from our own planet, particularly organisms that inhabit locations with extreme conditions, offers far more value than that of space. Even if space exploration was a good target of funding in the past, it is now a growing target of venture capital and private ingenuity. For example, SpaceX's reusable rocket that is expected to reduce launch costs for commercial satelites, Bigelow Aerospace's investment in space tourism, and Virgin Galactic's expected space-faring plane, among others.

Now that private companies are intending to supply space access on the cheap, it is useless to spend all that money on expensive platforms such as the space shuttle and moon landings. Furthermore, a lot of the 'advances' space exploration bring us is irrelevant to daily life: why bother spending money developing a pen that works in zero-gravity when a pencil will do and the vast majority of the world's 6 billion people will never experience zero gravity?
 
Last edited:
Meaning...making trips to the moon simpler, more frequent? Make sense, gotta be cheaper to do mars runs from the moon that earth.


As for a female astronaught on the moon? Shouldn't even be a question. Of course. Wish I was there....I'd bust out a sexist joke you literally can't use anywhere else...

During the moon walk..."My, Sally, you look GREAT! Have you lost weight?"

Ahhh, I kill me.

Admittedly, I had to resist a couple jokes that sprang to my mind while writing the OP.
 
Do we get to pick the woman?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I thought Alice Kramden already went to the Moon.Bang zoom.
 
Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?


What would be the purpose besides a "gender first"?


If there is a legitimate scientific purpose, I am all for it.....but if its to make a diversity statement, I am sure there are other less costly ways to make such a statement.
 
You wanna go to the moon because of crazy conspiracy people?

Why not just buy a telescope. We left stuff on the moon.
 
In this day and age, the next astronaut to the moon should be gender neutral! :lamo
 
To what end? To update the flag? 1 moon trip = billions of dollars. That's with a B.

For that kinda cash, I want there to more purpose than to just prove we could.

Eh im still quite alright with the mission. With space exploration being more privatized in recent years, i think we could do more investment in NASA. Women have been in the field for a long time though.
 
Last edited:
Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?

I totally do. It’s really kind of amazing we haven’t landed on the moon in so long and, let’s face it, that has fueled some of the conspiracy theories about moon landings being hoaxes. We have much better technology now to document a moon landing and why not secure another spot in history for being the first and maybe only nation to put a women on the moon?

Attaching poll.
I support putting the most qualified astronauts on the moon mission regardless of gender. If the top three are women - send them, if the top three are men - they go. Or any combination in between.
 
An expensive endeavor, but one benefit is that all of the tech that's needed for a more efficient Moon landing has a trickle down effect of innovation to other industries. It will also give the private sector a chance to test out its more efficient launching strategies.

It baffles me why we are so focused on going to Mars when Luna is a much more viable development target. It even has frozen water.

I personally don't care about the gender/sex of the person who ends up there, as long as they're qualified.
 
Do you support the goal of putting the first woman astronaut on the moon?

I totally do. It’s really kind of amazing we haven’t landed on the moon in so long and, let’s face it, that has fueled some of the conspiracy theories about moon landings being hoaxes. We have much better technology now to document a moon landing and why not secure another spot in history for being the first and maybe only nation to put a women on the moon?

Attaching poll.
I do not if its being done just for the sake of reaching some political correctness milestone.

Let women and men compete equally in the program and send the person there.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Furthermore, a lot of the 'advances' space exploration bring us is irrelevant to daily life: why bother spending money developing a pen that works in zero-gravity when a pencil will do and the vast majority of the world's 6 billion people will never experience zero gravity?

Hmmmm...here's a couple you might not be aware of. Maybe not directly developed BY NASA but certainly developed with NASA in mind.

1. The standardization of "time-code" editing, more than any other development, made frame accurate videotape editing viable. Developed by EECO in 1967, time-code was awarded an Emmy in 1971, and standardized by SMPTE shortly thereafter. The process assigned each video frame a digital "audio address," allowed editors to manage lists of hundreds of shots, and made frame accuracy and rapidly cut sequences a norm.

But EECO had originally developed time-code as the EECO "On-Time" Telemetry Management System, to be used by NASA (and the military) for more accurate control of commands sent and received by aerospace vehicles in flight and for more accurate logging of telemetry tapes. Each second was divided into hundredths and each hundredth second was assigned a digital audio address. SMPTE adapted it for use in television videotape.

An early AMPEX VR-2000 VTR, circa 1960

800px-Ampex_VR-2000_20131126.jpg


2. Microprocessors were going to be invented no matter what but because NASA and the military needed them way more than the consumer market, the industry received some help and in return they scaled up manufacturing on a fast track for consumer needs.
Eventually that would have happened anyway but if one looks at the Soviets, one cannot deny that there was at least a fifteen year gap between their own microprocessors being used in aerospace, and the release of that technology to the Soviet marketplace. The Russian consumer was still deep in the vacuum tube and transistor era long after the USA and the rest of the western world had adopted microprocessor technology.
Thanks to Ma Bell, NASA and the military, research got fast tracked, and it got popularized and released to the consumer market in short order.

There are literally thousands of technological advances that we take for granted today that had some or all of their roots in the NASA Lunar Program.
The USA/Soviet Space Race to the Moon spurred the single largest technological leap forward in the entire history of the human race.
What's more, it was a "war" in which thousands and millions were not killed, there was a clear objective and the losers eventually shared the fruits of the winners.
I would much rather we invest billions in cooperative space ventures than endless wars and proxy wars.
 
Everyone's gone to the moon. To those who are concerned about the money, we waste billions on fighter jets that suck, some needless wars that add to the toll, corruption at all levels of government plus officials that spend more money on Crap than most of the people on this forum would spend in 10 years. It would be a plus for me personally. The news would talk about something else beside the next election.
 
You wanna go to the moon because of crazy conspiracy people?

Why not just buy a telescope. We left stuff on the moon.

No telescope has a focal length that permits seeing anything left on the moon with a telescope from Earth. Perhaps you can from your planet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
There needs to be a good reason to go to the moon, and political correctness is not a good reason.
 
Assuming the Fed can print enough money to finance the project, so long as the woman is one of the most qualified I see no reason not to include a woman. But simply as a virtue signaling stunt it's not worth it. Actually, if we're being fair, an Asian should probably be included as a crew member on a moon trip. That way we're sure to have one very intelligent person on the team.
 
Just because she's a woman? No. But if there's a legitimate mission and the best qualified astronauts are women, sure. That includes merit and seniority too.
 
I don't support anyone else landing on the moon. It's a huge waste of money. The scientific knowledge obtainable from our own planet, particularly organisms that inhabit locations with extreme conditions, offers far more value than that of space. Even if space exploration was a good target of funding in the past, it is now a growing target of venture capital and private ingenuity. For example, SpaceX's reusable rocket that is expected to reduce launch costs for commercial satelites, Bigelow Aerospace's investment in space tourism, and Virgin Galactic's expected space-faring plane, among others.

Now that private companies are intending to supply space access on the cheap, it is useless to spend all that money on expensive platforms such as the space shuttle and moon landings. Furthermore, a lot of the 'advances' space exploration bring us is irrelevant to daily life: why bother spending money developing a pen that works in zero-gravity when a pencil will do and the vast majority of the world's 6 billion people will never experience zero gravity?

Space programs have fueled all kinds of other products, making human's lives easier. It is not a waste of money.
 
Back
Top Bottom