• 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
Skateguy said:
If it is then such a good idea to explore space, why aren't major Corporations stepping up to get a slice of the Pie??---the gubment always takes on jobs, that are money pits. They run NASA, like tha post office. We don't need to spend billions in space--to make Velcro.
Click to expand...

NASA isn't run like the post office not remotely. And NASA is about RESEARCH. There are so many questions in the solar system that needs to be answered. Something the post office isn't worried about and most corporations cannot explore space because the budget required for it can only be afforded by the government. And just so you know Lockhead Martin, Boeing, EG&G are just some of the many corporations that are active in space research.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
NASA isn't run like the post office not remotely. And NASA is about RESEARCH. There are so many questions in the solar system that needs to be answered. Something the post office isn't worried about and most corporations cannot explore space because the budget required for it can only be afforded by the government. And just so you know Lockhead Martin, Boeing, EG&G are just some of the many corporations that are active in space research.
Click to expand...
But since we are trillions if Debt, does it seem to you that we can afford it, if big corporations can't. I say put NASA in moth balls, till the Nation gets back on her feet. ---there are lots of other Programs being funded by Tax payer dollars, that should also be put on hold. ---We are not hard pressed for Moon rocks in today's market. we could however use cheaper fuel. Put money into that.
 
idk said:
How valuable is NASA? They gave us Tempur-pedic mattresses. Case closed.
Click to expand...

If they have another idea as amazing as tempurpedic then they are most certainly the best government program out there.
 
Skateguy said:
I have no problem with Mans need to explore. I explore my self. but I don't expect tax payers to fund my ventures. Any one who as ever flown across our fine Nation, can see we have no shortage of land mass. we just have everybody living in the same place,and that is why it seems crowded. It would be cheaper, and more efficient to colonize the Sahara, or Antarctica, than the Moon.
Click to expand...

What part of "NASA is primarily a research organization, not the colonization arm of the US government" was unclear?
 
Skateguy said:
But since we are trillions if Debt,
Click to expand...

NASA's annual budget is chump change compared to our national debt.

Skateguy said:
does it seem to you that we can afford it, if big corporations can't.
Click to expand...

Big corporations can't afford it because there is no profit to be gained in, say, determining the chemical composition of Titan's atmosphere. That's exactly why the government should do it.

Skateguy said:
We are not hard pressed for Moon rocks in today's market. we could however use cheaper fuel. Put money into that.
Click to expand...

Since NASA doesn't exist to buy and sell moon rocks, this argument makes no sense. :roll:
 
Skateguy said:
We are not hard pressed for Moon rocks in today's market. we could however use cheaper fuel. Put money into that.
Click to expand...

Aerodynamics Research Revolutionizes Truck Design

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2008/t_3.html

The technologies are an aerodynamic vehicle design for trucks and recreational vehicles that cuts drag by more than 50 percent and increases highway fuel economy by more than 20 percent...

...

The designs reduce wind resistance and aerodynamic drag, improving fuel efficiency for trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, and many other large vehicles. Aerodynamic improvements from this research – which can be seen on highways across the country – can result in fuel savings of as much as 6,800 gallons per year for a single truck.
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/news/news_04_06_09_hof.html
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
But since we are trillions if Debt, does it seem to you that we can afford it, if big corporations can't. I say put NASA in moth balls, till the Nation gets back on her feet. ---there are lots of other Programs being funded by Tax payer dollars, that should also be put on hold. ---We are not hard pressed for Moon rocks in today's market. we could however use cheaper fuel. Put money into that.
Click to expand...

We are not in debt because of less than 1% of our budget.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
yeah but there has been several technology that was created by the private market not for NASA that NASA uses. If you are trying to say why should we continue funding for NASA it should be for the good of all mankind(sorry women you really don't have a place in this world:3oops:). Besides the US is hiding great tech from being used. For all we can guess is that the US already has a spacecraft capable of replacing the atlantis already but the government doesn't want the rest of the world to know so they keep it secret. And for what?
Click to expand...

Of course technology has been created by the private market that NASA uses. I would never deny that. But that doesn't mean that we should scrap NASA.
 
Kandahar said:
NASA's annual budget is chump change compared to our national debt.



Big corporations can't afford it because there is no profit to be gained in, say, determining the chemical composition of Titan's atmosphere. That's exactly why the government should do it.



Since NASA doesn't exist to buy and sell moon rocks, this argument makes no sense. :roll:
Click to expand...
It there is no profit to be gained, then why do tax payers have to fund it??? Charity? -- Sounds to me, like we are supporting somebodies expensive Hobby. Maybe they could make due with an ant farm, or find some other way to pay for it.---there is nothin in space that we need. we had it all here, and screwed it up.
 
Skateguy said:
It there is no profit to be gained, then why do tax payers have to fund it??? Charity? -- Sounds to me, like we are supporting somebodies expensive Hobby. Maybe they could make due with an ant farm, or find some other way to pay for it.---there is nothin in space that we need. we had it all here, and screwed it up.
Click to expand...
whats wrong with you?!! You don't find space exciting?
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
whats wrong with you?!! You don't find space exciting?
Click to expand...
As a Kid I did. but now we know it is just space, with some rocks and gasses out there. Now if it were like avatar, I'd sell my shop to go. they do call it "Space" for a reason----that's all it is.
 
Hatuey said:
We are not in debt because of less than 1% of our budget.
Click to expand...
Waste is waste--unless your rich. the rich think in terms like this %, or that % is acceptable loss. ---Why?? Cause it's not their money being spent, it's Ours.
 
Skateguy said:
Waste is waste--unless your rich. the rich think in terms like this %, or that % is acceptable loss. ---Why?? Cause it's not their money being spent, it's Ours.
Click to expand...

Are you even remotely kidding me? The 'rich' pay more taxes than the poor or even the middle class.

The 'rich' pay a bigger percentage of taxes | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns | Personal Finance | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News

Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes. They also pay much more of the total tax bill, a reality that has escaped Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Only 953,000 taxpayers – about 1 percent of the total who paid taxes – paid at the top 35 percent tax rate in 2005. They paid $315.4 billion in taxes on their $1,094 billion in income.

The most common tax rate is 15 percent, which is paid by 54.4 million taxpayers. This means the typical taxpayer pays at less than half the tax rate of the top earners.
Click to expand...
 
Skateguy said:
As a Kid I did. but now we know it is just space, with some rocks and gasses out there. Now if it were like avatar, I'd sell my shop to go. they do call it "Space" for a reason----that's all it is.
Click to expand...

But in order to have that we need for first research. Research makes it all possible, trust me.
 
Are you even remotely kidding me? The 'rich' pay more taxes than the poor or even the middle class.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you calculate "most taxes". In terms of dollar amounts yes, although that is hardly surprising considering they have most of the money. They pay proportionally higher on income taxes, but that includes capital gains, which often can generate a significant portion of their income. Practically, the ultra-rich pay less taxes as a portion of their wealth than the upper middle class does.
 
Tucker Case said:
But NASA is not a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Fine, as long as tax payers have a say in it. ---I didn't loose anything in space. and would not spend one more dollar messin around up there. We got plenty of work to do to fix our own planet, before we go off making land fills on some other terrestrial body. We just make a mess where ever we go it seems. We have much more evolving to do first. :mrgreen:
 
Skateguy said:
Fine, as long as tax payers have a say in it.
Click to expand...

They do. They can chose to elect representatives who do not support funding NASA. The only member of Congress who I could name off the top of my head that actually opposes NASA funding? "Q-razy"(sounds like Crazy with a very thick Georgia accent) Ron Paul. Don't believe me?

SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY, Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Position Paper (1988)

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.
Click to expand...

Crazy Summumabech.

paulalone.jpg
 
Last edited:
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
But in order to have that we need for first research. Research makes it all possible, trust me.
Click to expand...
We have explored to the end of Our solar system, and found nothing that would be cost efficient to try and bring back.----Plus the Good Lord gave us all we need, right here, we just need to be better stewards of this Blue and green Paradise. ---when we are ready, it will be Eden again. but only when We are ready, and not before. "the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence---matter of fact, there is no grass."
 
Hatuey said:
They do. They can chose to elect representatives who do not support funding NASA. The only member of Congress who I could name off the top of my head that actually opposes NASA funding? "Q-razy"(sounds like Crazy with a very thick Georgia accent) Ron Paul. Don't believe me?

SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY, Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Position Paper (1988)



Crazy Summumabech.

paulalone.jpg
Click to expand...
Dr. Ron Paul is "Tha Man" and has my vote, everytime. A true Statesman, from the Ole School.
 
Skateguy said:
Dr. Ron Paul is "Tha Man" and has my vote, everytime. A true Statesman, from the Ole School.
Click to expand...

Yeah for some reason I thought a person who thinks NASA is a waste of money would be a Ron Paul support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom