• 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
Blackdog said:
Go back and actualy read what I posted and don't just gloss over it because it does not agree with you.



The link did not claim credit for the discovery, it claimed credit for the improvements. Again more intellectual dishonesty.



"Memory foam, also known as temper foam, was developed under a NASA contract in the 1970s that set out to improve seat cushioning and crash protection for airline pilots and passengers. Memory foam has widespread commercial applications, in addition to the popular mattresses and pillows. For the latest Spinoff article, please visit: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ch_6.html."

"Barcodes were not invented by NASA. NASA developed a special type of barcode for inventory of space shuttle and other space system components that could endure harsh environments, but this should not be mistakened for the original barcode. Similarly, NASA was not the first to use quartz as a piezoelectric material for timekeeping. The first quartz clock dates back to 1927. However in the late 1960s, NASA partnered with a company to make a highly accurate quartz clock. This clock was on the market for a few years but is no longer available. Further, NASA did not invent the smoke detector. NASA’s connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project. The device was made commercially available by Honeywell. The consumer could use it to avoid “nuisance” alarms while cooking. Like the quartz clock, this device is no longer available." - http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm

"Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program." - http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm

From NASA's web site. It does not look like they are taking credit for anything they did not do.



Shown above by NASA's own website they did not take credit for either.All of that and still no degree in chemistry!
Click to expand...

I didn't say NASA took credit, I said some people GIVE NASA credit, stupid people who watch too much Star Trek...
 
UtahBill said:
the word is dangerous...
If we really could extract shale oil for 30 bucks, it would be happening. What are the sources for that number?
Click to expand...

"People who think it is to dangers to the environment etc." - Blackdog

Please explain how what I said (listed above) represents shale or extracting it? :doh

This really has nothing to do with anything I stated.
 
Blackdog said:
Yea facts with no fallacy is weak. :roll:

Now we add an ad-hom.



Does not offend at all. It's just not backed up by anything like facts.
Click to expand...

'splain, Lucy, what you mean by facts with no fallacy....if you can...
what are you, some high school kid taking a debate class?
Again, you don't have the knowledge to speak intelligently on the topic.
Scarecrow does, but you don't.....
 
UtahBill said:
I didn't say NASA took credit, I said some people GIVE NASA credit, stupid people who watch too much Star Trek...
Click to expand...

That is a bald face lie...

"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill
 
Blackdog said:
Private schools paid for by my parents. Would you like me to list them for you as well?
Public schools and our public school system are an abomination. So much so we sent our daughter through private schools as well. She is an engineer now.



.
Click to expand...

Your parents got a poor ROI, hope you fared better with your daughter's education...
I am 63, spent my working years in and around nuclear energy, around a LOT of engineers, and I can't think of any of them who went to private school.
I guess THEIR education is an abomination?
Was yours a church sponsored private school?
What is your take on evolution?
 
UtahBill said:
'splain, Lucy, what you mean by facts with no fallacy....if you can...
Click to expand...

Certaianly.

I presented facts backed up by evidence and stayed on topic with no fallacy replies or arguments.

UtahBill said:
what are you, some high school kid taking a debate class?
Click to expand...

Considering your performance up to now, you mite want to take one.

UtahBill said:
Again, you don't have the knowledge to speak intelligently on the topic.
Scarecrow does, but you don't.....
Click to expand...

And yet you have not refuted anything I have stated at all with evidence, just opinion. Your opinion does not account for much when the facts say different.
 
Blackdog said:
That is a bald face lie...

"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill
Click to expand...

you are mixing posts....
I said that some people give NASA credit for things they never did, and you say NASA agrees, so how is it a lie? Just because YOU never heard it doesn't mean it was never said.....

Some very ignorant people hear something and repeat it, thinking that somehow they are just as right as the person they heard it from, but in fact they are just as wrong.

Yeah, tell me what private schools you attended, so I can make sure none of my grandkids attend them....
 
UtahBill said:
Your parents got a poor ROI, hope you fared better with your daughter's education...
Click to expand...

More ad-hom and no substance.

UtahBill said:
I am 63, spent my working years in and around nuclear energy, around a LOT of engineers, and I can't think of any of them who went to private school.
Click to expand...

If you are 63 I would expect you to act like it. Again this is off topic and at this point pretty worthless.

UtahBill said:
I guess THEIR education is an abomination?
Was yours a church sponsored private school?
What is your take on evolution?
Click to expand...

As if any of this has anything to do with the topic.

More fallacy and ad-homs. :roll:
 
Blackdog said:
More ad-hom and no substance.



If you are 63 I would expect you to act like it. Again this is off topic and at this point pretty worthless.



As if any of this has anything to do with the topic.

More fallacy and ad-homs. :roll:
Click to expand...

still no answers, what are you afraid of?
 
UtahBill said:
the word is dangerous...
If we really could extract shale oil for 30 bucks, it would be happening. What are the sources for that number?
Click to expand...

It used to be oiltech.com, but they've been sold and traded etc etc, and Shell Oil had developed an in situ method of oil extraction, again for roughly $30 bucks, and this would be eight or nine years ago.

And, no, it wouldn't be happening, not when the following real scenario happens:

GW Bush urges Congress to lift it's ban on domestic drilling and oil exploration.

But forgets to countermand his own EO forbidding same.

Congress under the Messiah has been further limiting oil shale resource licenses...

...and it's quite apparent that none of the people who have the authority to make the US energy independent want to do so.

...just like neither Dems nor Repubs want to stop illegal immigration. They're getting something by selling American citizens down the river in both cases.

Technical merit and morality and national need count for nothing against political greed.

And this is why I would not object to a private fund for building good solid brick walls all over Washington and wherever politicians may be found, that, and a national stockpile of tar and feathers.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
you are mixing posts....
I said that some people give NASA credit for things they never did, and you say NASA agrees, so how is it a lie? Just because YOU never heard it doesn't mean it was never said.....
Click to expand...

"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill

Not according to your own words in this post...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101489

To which I replied directly here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101519

So yes you lied.

UtahBill said:
Some very ignorant people hear something and repeat it, thinking that somehow they are just as right as the person they heard it from, but in fact they are just as wrong.
Click to expand...

And yet you have posted little of relevance to the thread or subject at hand.

UtahBill said:
Yeah, tell me what private schools you attended, so I can make sure none of my grandkids attend them....
Click to expand...

I guess sarcasm is lost on you? Par for the course.
 
UtahBill said:
still no answers, what are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

Because it is off topic and has no relevance to anything in this thread. I guess you are having trouble with understanding that?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It used to be oiltech.com, but they've been sold and traded etc etc, and Shell Oil had developed an in situ method of oil extraction, again for roughly $30 bucks, and this would be eight or nine years ago.

And, no, it wouldn't be happening, not when the following real scenario happens:

GW Bush urges Congress to lift it's ban on domestic drilling and oil exploration.

But forgets to countermand his own EO forbidding same.

Congress under the Messiah has been further limiting oil shale resource licenses...

...and it's quite apparent that none of the people who have the authority to make the US energy independent want to do so.

...just like neither Dems nor Repubs want to stop illegal immigration. They're getting something by selling American citizens down the river in both cases.

Technical merit and morality and national need count for nothing against political greed.

And this is why I would not object to a private fund for building good solid brick walls all over Washington and wherever politicians may be found, that, and a national stockpile of tar and feathers.
Click to expand...

a rational use of tar and feathers, I agree.....
 
Blackdog said:
"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill

Not according to your own words in this post...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101489

To which I replied directly here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101519

So yes you lied.



And yet you have posted little of relevance to the thread or subject at hand.



I guess sarcasm is lost on you? Par for the course.
Click to expand...

no, didn't lie.....you need to use post numbers...
read post 10....
the way the PR people praise NASA belittles the actual inventors of many technologies.
The LED was invented long before NASA, the PV cell likewise, and freeze dried food was known to ancient peruvians....
But the uninformed and the ignorant want to give NASA credit for the application of existing technology....
 
UtahBill said:
no, didn't lie.....you need to use post numbers...
read post 10....
the way the PR people praise NASA belittles the actual inventors of many technologies.
Click to expand...

According to NASA's own website this is not true at all. They have gone out of the way to make certain people know the difference.

You have not posted anything to show otherwise.

What numbers? I gave you direct links to the posts.

UtahBill said:
The LED was invented long before NASA, the PV cell likewise, and freeze dried food was known to ancient peruvians....
But the uninformed and the ignorant want to give NASA credit for the application of existing technology....
Click to expand...

The ignorant I agree could do this, but the fact is you also said NASA did this:

"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill

You are trying to say you did not say this, when it is pretty clear you did.
 
Blackdog said:
"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill

Not according to your own words in this post...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101489

To which I replied directly here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cessary-do-you-support-14.html#post1058101519

So yes you lied.



And yet you have posted little of relevance to the thread or subject at hand.



I guess sarcasm is lost on you? Par for the course.
Click to expand...
I said....A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit.
Last time this came up on DP, someone actually suggested that TANG and VELCRO were invented by NASA....



The underlined part is an error on my part, NASA itself is careful to be more accurate, but post 10 is a quote from wikipedia, and if NASA wants to be accurate, they should correct wikipedia....

The bolded part is what happens when the average person doesn't do their own research. NASA is given credit by others for things they did not do...
 
UtahBill said:
I said....A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit.
Last time this came up on DP, someone actually suggested that TANG and VELCRO were invented by NASA....

The underlined part is an error on my part, NASA itself is careful to be more accurate, but post 10 is a quote from wikipedia, and if NASA wants to be accurate, they should correct wikipedia....
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is not always accurate although they do try. NASA probably does not spend a great deal of time making certain wkipedia is accurate, lol.

UtahBill said:
The bolded part is what happens when the average person doesn't do their own research. NASA is given credit by others for things they did not do...
Click to expand...

I agree.

I just don't understand what this had to do with my initial argument.
 
Blackdog said:
According to NASA's own website this is not true at all. They have gone out of the way to make certain people know the difference.

You have not posted anything to show otherwise.

What numbers? I gave you direct links to the posts.



The ignorant I agree could do this, but the fact is you also said NASA did this:

"A good deal of what NASA brags about were in existence long before NASA came into existence, but they try to claim ALL the credit." - UtahBill

You are trying to say you did not say this, when it is pretty clear you did.
Click to expand...

you are correct, sometimes I type faster than I think...the second part is the message I mean to convey.
Fact remains, all of the spinoff of technology combined does not justify manned space travel. It is a tremendous waste of money to be seeking another planet to live on while we are still so ignorant of how to take care of the ONLY planet we have...
 
Blackdog said:
Wikipedia is not always accurate although they do try. NASA probably does not spend a great deal of time making certain wkipedia is accurate, lol.



I agree.

I just don't understand what this had to do with my initial argument.
Click to expand...

whatever that is/was....
later, it is my bedtime...:2wave:
 
UtahBill said:
you are correct, sometimes I type faster than I think...the second part is the message I mean to convey.
Fact remains, all of the spinoff of technology combined does not justify manned space travel.
Click to expand...

I think it does, but we can agree to disagree as it is subjective.

UtahBill said:
It is a tremendous waste of money to be seeking another planet to live on while we are still so ignorant of how to take care of the ONLY planet we have...
Click to expand...

I don't see it as looking for another planet to live on. I see it more a an investment in our long term future whether that involves saving this world or moving to another remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom