• 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 travel. Is it necessary? Do you support it?

Do you support the continuation of the US space programme?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 85.5%

  • No

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Only the continuation of the research

    Votes: 5 9.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Total voters
    55
celticlord said:
Kennedy was before LBJ and the Great Society decided to focus on subsidizing physical and moral lassitude. Since then, the focus of the Anti-Republicans has been to make virtue out of vice. The party of Kennedy would not be a bad governing party, but that party left Washington in 1964 and never came back.

The US should gut every entitlement program if that's what it takes to balance the budget, defend the nation, and send people out to explore and eventually colonize other planets.
Click to expand...

I really liked the democrats before the Great Society. FDR, Truman, and especially Kennedy were all great. The welfare programs that they had were truely a safety net, and not FEDERAL wealth distrubtion for the sake of it.

They were aggressive in the Cold War like the Republicans, but not as much, they supported civil rights equality, didn't have religious politics, had ballanced budgets (except during Depression) and were just cooler, ballin people anyway. :p

Clinton's the only backlash to that, in sense, and I would be voting democrat if they stayed that way.
 
128shot said:
Which gets funded all the time. NASA's budget is minuscule compared to say, the defense departments?
Click to expand...

OMG! NASA's funding is an order of magnitude above NSF and other funding agencies which fund base scientific research. The DoD and DoE spend some money on specific research as well, but talking of base science or medical research; the organizations involved with that funding has nothing compared to what NASA gets.
 
Bodhisattva said:
How can we not have the technology to get people to the moon when we have already landed people on the moon. I am extremely confused...
Click to expand...

It's been lost. We no longer have the technology to land on the moon. That's why one of Bush's goals was to get back to the moon. We don't currently have the technology to land people on the moon anymore.
 
Ikari said:
OMG! NASA's funding is an order of magnitude above NSF and other funding agencies which fund base scientific research. The DoD and DoE spend some money on specific research as well, but talking of base science or medical research; the organizations involved with that funding has nothing compared to what NASA gets.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

....know what NASA does? Can you tell us what the first "A" in NASA stands for without looking it up?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmm...

....know what NASA does? Can you tell us what the first "A" in NASA stands for without looking it up?
Click to expand...

Hmmm....Does a scientist who has met a number of high level NASA scientists and bureaucrats know what NASA does or what its letters stand for? Let me think on this one.....
 
Ikari said:
It's been lost. We no longer have the technology to land on the moon. That's why one of Bush's goals was to get back to the moon. We don't currently have the technology to land people on the moon anymore.
Click to expand...

How do you lose technology?
 
Redress said:
How do you lose technology?
Click to expand...

Easy, you don't save it.

We don't have the molds, the tools, or the engineers who built the Saturn Five rockets. It's doubtful if we have a complete set of prints.

It cost money to save out of date gear and plans, and no one spent the money to mothball Apollo properly, so it's gone. We do not have a 1.5 million pound thrust engine available, and it will take a decade to rebuild one.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Easy, you don't save it.

We don't have the molds, the tools, or the engineers who built the Saturn Five rockets. It's doubtful if we have a complete set of prints.

It cost money to save out of date gear and plans, and no one spent the money to mothball Apollo properly, so it's gone. We do not have a 1.5 million pound thrust engine available, and it will take a decade to rebuild one.
Click to expand...

So it's engineering, not technology?
 
Ikari said:
Hmmm....Does a scientist who has met a number of high level NASA scientists and bureaucrats know what NASA does or what its letters stand for? Let me think on this one.....
Click to expand...

You didn't answer, you must not know.

I'm easy, you had your chance.

The word is "aeronautics".

NASA is responsible for civillian flight research, and that costs money, lots of it.
 
Redress said:
So it's engineering, not technology?
Click to expand...

Technology is banging the rocks together.

Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to show that banging the rocks together just-so will optimize the production of flint blade flakes.
 
Technology gets lost all the time, even in modern times. There was a crystal laser which used to be made, doped with some element I forget off hand. The laser can no longer be made because the technology to make it was lost. That one was due to the head researcher not quite writing down all the details in the manufacturing of the crystal and when that guy died. the new guys came in and couldn't recreate the procedure to how the crystal was made in such a way as to allow lasing. Mostly things are lost due to improper documentation. How this specific one (the lunar lander) was lost was because after the Apollo missions were done, everything was disassembled and stored. The industries which made everything were disassembled and we no longer have what it takes to get to the moon. We would have to start over, and starting over in an era of different technologies and safety requirements. The old style manner of getting the moon and landing people on it is gone though and we no longer have the ability to go there.
 
Ok, I understand. Thanks for explaining it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You didn't answer, you must not know.

I'm easy, you had your chance.

The word is "aeronautics".

NASA is responsible for civillian flight research, and that costs money, lots of it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Condescending. If you choose to read what I have written, I did not state that NASA should be shut down in its entirety, and I think there are still many experiments and science it can engage in. This thread is specifically about manned space travel. To which I have stated that the amount of resource necessary to fully explore those means are beyond what we can currently fund and the man-hours and money are better spent on other research which would have a more immediate response.
 
Ikari said:
Thank you Mr. Condescending.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Ikari said:
If you choose to read what I have written, I did not state that NASA should be shut down in its entirety, and I think there are still many experiments and science it can engage in. This thread is specifically about manned space travel. To which I have stated that the amount of resource necessary to fully explore those means are beyond what we can currently fund and the man-hours and money are better spent on other research which would have a more immediate response.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the government should never invest in the long run, if it doesn't generate ROI in the next quarter is should be abandoned.

Which is how government runs now, and why the US space program is in the shambles it is in.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You're welcome.



So you're saying that the government should never invest in the long run, if it doesn't generate ROI in the next quarter is should be abandoned.

Which is how government runs now, and why the US space program is in the shambles it is in.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if it were to become practical then sure we can invest as we see fit. But currently, it's not practical and we can reap much better rewards through various other funding of research. Part of the reason whythe space program is in shambles is also due to the control the President has over the mandates of NASA.
 
Ikari said:
I'm saying that if it were to become practical then sure we can invest as we see fit. But currently, it's not practical and we can reap much better rewards through various other funding of research. Part of the reason whythe space program is in shambles is also due to the control the President has over the mandates of NASA.
Click to expand...

Practical Space Research:

Locating lunar water.
Claiming lunar water as US assets.
Utilizing lunar water to build lunar colony to:
Secure missile silo emplacements, with on-target delivery speeds vastly in excess of any missile launched from earth, making ABM technology that much harder.
Establish beachead for future lunar exploitation.
Establish base for solar system exploitation.
Inspire the coming generations to think large, not socialist.
Determine the medical effects of continued low gee on human beings as part of a continually developing baseline of medical knowledge.
Tourism.

Lots of things, and most of them could be developed within two decades if proper commitment was made to rapidly design reliable systems that work, instead of first establishing career cubbies for politicians and civil service administrators.
 
Are there international treaty about claiming water and such on the moon and weaponization? Weaponizing space is a rather dangerous prospect in and of itself. Tourism isn't something that really benefits mankind much at all, especially if you're talking about taking money from other research projects to fund the research for safe, reliable, and durable space travel in addition to actually setting up the means for such tourism on the moon. Which would necessarily be true if the goal was somehow space tourism. I'd much rather fund advancements in science and medicine here on earth first as it would have a much larger and beneficial impact than space tourism.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Locating lunar water.
Claiming lunar water as US assets.
Click to expand...

:rofl
Right, that would be much more cost-effective than desalination plants.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Inspire the coming generations to think large, not socialist.
Click to expand...

I am truly astounded that you have the nerve to bitch about socialism in the same post that you're calling for a huge government expenditure on something that produces almost no benefit.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Determine the medical effects of continued low gee on human beings as part of a continually developing baseline of medical knowledge.
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of government funding medical research here on earth?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Tourism.
Click to expand...

What was that about socialism again? :doh

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Lots of things, and most of them could be developed within two decades if proper commitment was made to rapidly design reliable systems that work, instead of first establishing career cubbies for politicians and civil service administrators.
Click to expand...

Ya. Or...we could spend the money on something that's actually practical.
 
Ikari said:
Are there international treaty about claiming water and such on the moon and weaponization?
Click to expand...

Abrogate them.

Ikari said:
Weaponizing space is a rather dangerous prospect in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Space is already "weaponized", since all ICBM's travel above the atmosphere to get to their targets. Also, all nations that can have surveillance sats up there. Information is a potent weapon indeed. China, Russia, and the US have a-sat capability.

Putting missiles on the moon is an essential national security step.

Ikari said:
Tourism isn't something that really benefits mankind much at all, especially if you're talking about taking money from other research projects to fund the research for safe, reliable, and durable space travel in addition to actually setting up the means for such tourism on the moon.
Click to expand...

You mean as opposed to establishing safe, reliable, and durable transportation for non-tourists?

Cattle are cattle, are they not?

Ikari said:
Which would necessarily be true if the goal was somehow space tourism. I'd much rather fund advancements in science and medicine here on earth first as it would have a much larger and beneficial impact than space tourism.
Click to expand...

And if it's determined that permanent residendence in sustained low-gee can extend the human life span by twenty years? What, after all, is the main cause of death in the elderly? Strokes, cardiac problems, other struggles of the body against gravity. Sustained zero-gee is harmful, yes. What about 1/6 gee, strong enough to give an up and down for bodily fluid distributions, not strong enough to strain the muscles and skeleton.

Medicine on earth can't adjust for the gravity parameter, and the human life expectancy has plateaued to the point where gains will be dependent upon whether we can get people to excercise and eat right, and stop shooting each others.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Don't know.

I expect tourists to be milked for every dollar they can be had for. That's what the species exists for.

Why would tourism be "socialist"?
Click to expand...

Because you want a government-funded space program because it could establish tourism. For someone who spends so much time bitching about constitutional originalism and the use of taxpayer dollars for things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, you have no difficulty ignoring your own philosophy when it's YOUR pet program on the chopping block. Where is subsidizing the tourism industry in the US Constitution again? Hypocrite. :doh
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Because you want a government-funded space program because it could establish tourism.
Click to expand...

No.

I was listing the military and economic benefits of space travel.

Just in case you missed it, tourists would be expected to pay full fare.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

I was listing the military and economic benefits of space travel.

Just in case you missed it, tourists would be expected to pay full fare.
Click to expand...

You made the asinine list of benefits in response to Ikari's question about the benefits of funding space travel as opposed to REAL scientific research. Obviously you were insinuating, then, that NASA should be funded.

So let's just clear up the confusion then: Do you or do you not want the government to fund NASA?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Public perception severely underestimates the value that NASA provides to our nation and our economy. From another thread
Click to expand...

I know I am a bit late, but I just want to reiterate this point. There is no end to the advancements that have come from aspiring to the stars. The technology created by overshooting current needs here on earth has been more than a return on the investment.
 
First one "there" wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom