• 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!

Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

Has NASA outlived its usefulness

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 11.8%

  • No

    Votes: 60 88.2%
  • Total voters
    68
idk said:
You mean, you and the other supporter?
Click to expand...
Quantity, does not make up for Quality---when yer right, yer right. It often takes folks a while to catch up.:mrgreen: but I got a pretty fair track record so far.
 
Skateguy said:
Quantity, does not make up for Quality---when yer right, yer right. It often takes folks a while to catch up.:mrgreen: but I got a pretty fair track record so far.
Click to expand...

...Yeah no. It's because of **** like that - that nobody takes Ron Paul seriously. I mean you'd have to be a congressman who is completely f'n stupid to say that NASA is not worth the money spent on it. Trillions of dollars have been made and are still made by the market off the technology that comes from NASA. Millions of lives are saved because of government funded NASA technology that has been used in medical technology. I'd rather the government give up the post office before it gives up NASA.

I mean NASA has had a hand in some form or another when it comes to cancer diagnosis, mattress technology, weather prediction, cameras, computing and even ocean navigation. If you REALLY sit down and explore just how much money the free market makes off **** that NASA invented and how many people benefit from the thousands of engineers who work for the U.S. government. The benefits of NASA simply outweigh those of any social program or taking a gamble on the all powerful market to develop the same ideas. Now I know Ron Paul opposes NASA because he thinks it's a violation of the 636th amendment. But **** him. It's a good violation of the constitution when it is beneficial to the U.S. government in the way NASA has been for nearly 50 years.

Why should NASA be sold or shrunk down? If anything the last 30 years have proven that NASA is just as capable of producing even more results with smaller budgets. So yeah. **** Ron Paul. There are a lot of things I dislike the guy for and this is just one more to add to the list.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
...Yeah no. It's because of **** like that - that nobody takes Ron Paul seriously. I mean you'd have to be a congressman who is completely f'n stupid to say that NASA is not worth the money spent on it. Trillions of dollars have been made and are still made by the market off the technology that comes from NASA. Millions of lives are saved because of government funded NASA technology that has been used in medical technology. I'd rather the government give up the post office before it gives up NASA.

I mean NASA has had a hand in some form or another when it comes to cancer diagnosis, mattress technology, weather prediction, cameras, computing and even ocean navigation. If you REALLY sit down and explore just how much money the free market makes off **** that NASA invented and how many people benefit from the thousands of engineers who work for the U.S. government. The benefits of NASA simply outweigh those of any social program or taking a gamble on the all powerful market to develop the same ideas. Now I know Ron Paul opposes NASA because he thinks it's a violation of the 636th amendment. But **** him. It's a good violation of the constitution when it is beneficial to the U.S. government in the way NASA has been for nearly 50 years.

Why should NASA be sold or shrunk down? If anything the last 30 years have proven that NASA is just as capable of producing even more results with smaller budgets. So yeah. **** Ron Paul. There are a lot of things I dislike the guy for and this is just one more to add to the list.
Click to expand...
Cool dude--you pay for it:2wave:
 
Skateguy said:
Cool dude--you pay for it:2wave:
Click to expand...

We already do. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to NASA. I wish it had an even bigger budget. The sky is truly the limit in this case.

NASA is probably one of the few useful things to come out of the government. Don't get me wrong they can and are wasteful, but nothing like some other arms of the government. I think Hauty pretty much covered the "private sector" gains from NASA.

I am into Astrophotography etc. So their is no way I could ever be convinced it is a waste.

It is (with the deep oceans) one of the last great frontiers, and we need to be looking at it and exploring it.
 
A lot of the robotics that Canada invented for space research, like the CanadArm, has lead to industry robotics for automated manufacture. Not to mention raw computing power.

Even though I think human social development is not at the right stage for full on space exploration, our long term survival will depend on being able to get off of this planet and spread ourselves into space. NASA has been an excellent start to that process and we are benefitting in the process. Same with any other space agency in the Western world.

Canada wouldn't be the leader in robotics if we didn't have the Canadian Space Agency.
 
obvious Child said:
So you would have no problem not using a single applied material advancement that was derived from the space program?
Click to expand...

SMACK 'EM WITH THE LIST OBVIOUS! Cause I know you're already tak-tak-takking away putting it together. :lol:
 
Skateguy said:
With the recent batch of new Privately funded Space Explorers, is it time for NASA to be put into moth balls, so all that Tax Payer money can be spent on more productive projects, than spending 79 million dollars to hit the Moon with a rocket.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much technology in the private sector exists because of government contracts, which start out focusing on bettering the military? Everything from the computer chip to everyday house hold cleaning chemicals came from government sponsered military contracts. NASA is no different.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Do you realize how much technology in the private sector exists because of government contracts, which start out focusing on bettering the military? Everything from the computer chip to house hold cleaning chemicals came from government sponsered military contracts. NASA is no different.
Click to expand...

And the Internet.
 
EpicDude86 said:
SMACK 'EM WITH THE LIST OBVIOUS! Cause I know you're already tak-tak-takking away putting it together. :lol:
Click to expand...

Life sucks without NASA. No direct TV! No memory foam! No Howard Stern on satellite radio! Nothing that involves a satellite to make a long list short.

NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products

When NASA finally gets that Scramjet working Skateguy is going to have to sit on the old style plane which takes 11 hours to cross the Pacific while the rest of us breeze past him in less than 1 hour.

Mach 9.6 baby!
 
obvious Child said:
So you would have no problem not using a single applied material advancement that was derived from the space program?
Click to expand...

So, you don't have a problem pumping the same amount of cash into the military, either, right?
 
apdst said:
So, you don't have a problem pumping the same amount of cash into the military, either, right?
Click to expand...

Depends what they are using it for. Buying existing weapons to fight enemies that don't exist is rather stupid. The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances. But there's a significant difference in what NASA does and what the military does. NASA generally spends greater proportions of its budget on research. The military spends its money on all kinds of stuff. Your question is invalid because the two organizations are not apples to apples comparisons. Come back when you want me to discuss two similar organizations.

Tell me how buying a conventional bomb is as material advancing as [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_stir_welding]Friction stir welding[/ame]
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
And the Internet.
Click to expand...

That is Al Gore Yo.

political-pictures-al-gore-internet.jpg
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Depends what they are using it for. Buying existing weapons to fight enemies that don't exist is rather stupid. The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances. But there's a significant difference in what NASA does and what the military does. NASA generally spends greater proportions of its budget on research. The military spends its money on all kinds of stuff. Your question is invalid because the two organizations are not apples to apples comparisons. Come back when you want me to discuss two similar organizations.
Click to expand...


Well, not really. There are quite a few military discoveries than we use everyday. A lot of our medical advances were discovered during battlefield surgeries, especially when dealing with trauma. Medicine, appliances, meterology, optics, vehicles. Who do you think invented the can opener?
 
apdst said:
Well, not really. There are quite a few military discoveries than we use everyday.
Click to expand...

Do I need to pay for your local community college English comprehension classes? This is getting out of hand.

Notice I said this: "The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."

You saying "not really" and then discussing every day applied material military advances is not a good sign you can understand the English Language after you quoted a post agreeing with your statement.

A lot of our medical advances were discovered during battlefield surgeries, especially when dealing with trauma.
Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise, or you are simply not able to understand the written English language?

Again, notice this from the post you quoted: "The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."

Medicine, appliances, meterology, optics, vehicles. Who do you think invented the can opener?
Click to expand...

For the third time:

"The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."

How does that suggest I disagree with anything you said? :confused::shock::doh
 
obvious Child said:
Do I need to pay for your local community college English comprehension classes? This is getting out of hand.

Notice I said this: "The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."

You saying "not really" and then discussing every day applied material military advances is not a good sign you can understand the English Language after you quoted a post agreeing with your statement.



Did I say otherwise, or you are simply not able to understand the written English language?

Again, notice this from the post you quoted: "The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."



For the third time:

"The military like NASA has resulted in a great many applied material advances."

How does that suggest I disagree with anything you said? :confused::shock::doh
Click to expand...


Well, actually, you said:

Your question is invalid because the two organizations are not apples to apples comparisons. Come back when you want me to discuss two similar organizations.
Click to expand...

I never said, "not really".

Who can't read?
 
apdst said:
Well, actually, you said:

I never said, "not really".

Who can't read?
Click to expand...

You again. NASA does not fight wars. NASA does not buy warfare bombs nor use. NASA does not train soldiers to kill people (well, aliens but that's just speculation). NASA does not buy tanks. NASA's primary job is not to defend the US. While there are military uses for NASA research, NASA is not in the business of defending the US. It is in exploration and research.

You're totally unaware of the civilian applications of TNT? Please, tell me you're smarter than that. You're going to let alotta people down if you're not.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. You ask if I can't read after showing you can't. Do you realize that NASA is a civilian organization? Again, the apples to oranges issue you seem unaware of. Me citing TNT as used by a CIVILIAN organization and you insulting me on not knowing the uses of it by a named civilian organization is pretty much uber-fail on your part.
 
obvious Child said:
You again. NASA does not fight wars. NASA does not buy warfare bombs nor use. NASA does not train soldiers to kill people (well, aliens but that's just speculation). NASA does not buy tanks. NASA's primary job is not to defend the US. While there are military uses for NASA research, NASA is not in the business of defending the US. It is in exploration and research.



Oh boy. You ask if I can't read after showing you can't. Do you realize that NASA is a civilian organization? Again, the apples to oranges issue you seem unaware of. Me citing TNT as used by a CIVILIAN organization and you insulting me on not knowing the uses of it by a named civilian organization is pretty much uber-fail on your part.
Click to expand...


How does any of that support the argument that you're trying to make? really, how?
 
apdst said:
How does any of that support the argument that you're trying to make? really, how?
Click to expand...

It would help if you understood the English Language.

Is NASA's primary job to defend America from foreign powers? No.
Is the US military's primary job to defend America from foreign powers? Yes.

Does NASA buy in large quantities tools for waging war? No.
Does the US military buy in large quantities tools for waging war? Yes.

Is NASA primarily focused on waging war? No.
Is the US military focused on waging war? Yes.

Has NASA ever waged a war? No (well, not that we know of)
Has the US military ever waged a war? Yes.

Do you notice a pattern here? I, in the post you claim doesn't support my argument show how NASA does not engage in activities the US military does. And you claim none of that supports my claim that the organizations are not the same.

Huh. Two organizations which fulfill two very different roles are not the same? Imagine that!

And thanks for proving again you do not understand the written English Language.

And it's amusing how you discussed material advanced when you BOLDED my part about how both organizations do different things.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
It would help if you understood the English Language.

Is NASA's primary job to defend America from foreign powers? No.
Is the US military's primary job to defend America from foreign powers? Yes.

Does NASA buy in large quantities tools for waging war? No.
Does the US military buy in large quantities tools for waging war? Yes.

Is NASA primarily focused on waging war? No.
Is the US military focused on waging war? Yes.

Has NASA ever waged a war? No (well, not that we know of)
Has the US military ever waged a war? Yes.

Do you notice a pattern here? I, in the post you claim doesn't support my argument show how NASA does not engage in activities the US military does. And you claim none of that supports my claim that the organizations are not the same.

Huh. Two organizations which fulfill two very different roles are not the same? Imagine that!

And thanks for proving again you do not understand the written English Language.

And it's amusing how you discussed material advanced when you BOLDED my part about how both organizations do different things.
Click to expand...

You've totally changed the subject...:rofl

Some people's ignorance amazes me.
 
apdst said:
You've totally changed the subject...:rofl

Some people's ignorance amazes me.
Click to expand...

Fail.

Let's recap. You quoted me agreeing with you yet called me wrong. I point this out and you changed the argument to whether or not the two organizations are the same. See post #67. I then post examples of how the organizations are indeed different. You then ask me how any of that proves my argument that the two are not the same. I then provide more examples of how they are not the same to which you claim I changed the subject. Except going back to post #67 shows you changed it away from how both produce material advances after I showed you totally screwed up reading comprehension by arguing I was wrong via agreeing with what I said. So either you are a liar or illiterate. I'll give you illiterate given your history.
 
MSgt said:
Do you realize how much technology in the private sector exists because of government contracts, which start out focusing on bettering the military? Everything from the computer chip to everyday house hold cleaning chemicals came from government sponsered military contracts. NASA is no different.
Click to expand...

Well now what have we here gunny....made top eh?Congratulation.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom