• 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
UtahBill said:
We have known for decades that there are no habitable planets within many, many light years of earth, and that man cannot live in space long enough to get to even the nearest uninhabitable planet. So, why do we still pursue the impossible with so much money? should we bankrupt the nation for useless knowledge?
Click to expand...

The 7 Billion we spend on NASA, is nothing compared to what we spend on much less useful things as a country. With NASA, we get tangible and helpful returns.

As for it being "useless" that is the same thing people thought before we were able to go to the moon.

Eventually we will be able to. Of course if we give up now it will never happen.

It is a good thing people like you did not deter the Wright brothers etc. We would have gotten no place.
 
UtahBill said:
should we bankrupt the nation for useless knowledge?
Click to expand...
Lol. The Iraq War, inept regulatory agencies, federal bailouts, and the debilitating costs of healthcare have bankrupted the nation. Not NASA.
 
Kal'Stang said:
They do have plans for any satillite that is put up there. One of the major plans is if the satillite is small enough to just let its orbit decay and burn up on re-entry. No piece of the satillite will reach the ground because of it.

If the satillite is too big then they shoot it to pieces which will burn up on re-entry.

No one is ever hurt by either of these plans. If you believe that they have then I would challenge you to provide such evidence.
Click to expand...
When I was a Kid, I use to like to shoot arrows into the air. My Dad said it was a bad idea. I told Him he was wrong. I hadn't killed anybody, yet.
 
UtahBill said:
We have known for decades that there are no habitable planets within many, many light years of earth, and that man cannot live in space long enough to get to even the nearest uninhabitable planet. So, why do we still pursue the impossible with so much money? should we bankrupt the nation for useless knowledge?
Click to expand...

No known habitable planets. The only planets that we can detect are the ones that are about the size of Jupiter or larger, and thats only because they're big enough to make a blip in the amount of light shineing our way from the star...we can't see the actual planets themselves.

And as I've already shown, for every dollar spent on NASA we get a return of 7-8 dollars.

Also just like Blackdog said...we will get there evetually, but we'll never get there if we stop trying.
 
Lots of Guys workin for NASA on here it seems---can you get me a swim in that big pool. My Friend John works out there, and he can't get me in.
 
Tashah said:
Lol. The Iraq War, inept regulatory agencies, federal bailouts, and the debilitating costs of healthcare have bankrupted the nation. Not NASA.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree....NASA isn't the only problem. IMO, NASA should be dedicating half of its brainpower to solving our current energy problems.
I wouldn't abolish NASA, just redirect some of its efforts...
 
Skateguy said:
When I was a Kid, I use to like to shoot arrows into the air. My Dad said it was a bad idea. I told Him he was wrong. I hadn't killed anybody, yet.
Click to expand...

You more than likely didn't shoot that arrow in an area that had lots of people in it. IE you took precautions. Just like NASA and other space agencies around the world.
 
OK, I got it. ---NASA should post it's plans for the coming year, and exactly what it will cost tax payers. then let them vote on it. Seems fair to me. ---they are not the only organization that needs trimming, just the one I started with. --You may be next. ---so put those ink cartridges back. :mrgreen:
 
Skateguy said:
OK, I got it. ---NASA should post it's plans for the coming year, and exactly what it will cost tax payers. then let them vote on it. Seems fair to me. ---they are not the only organization that needs trimming, just the one I started with. --You may be next. ---so put those ink cartridges back. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The people already vote on it every time they vote for someone that endorses what NASA does. If you don't like NASA then start voting for people that are against it.

And NASA doesn't need any more trimming. They've already been trimmed down ALOT. They take up less than 1% of our budget...they use to take up a lot more.

They should be given far far far more imo.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
The people already vote on it every time they vote for someone that endorses what NASA does. If you don't like NASA then start voting for people that are against it.
Click to expand...
I have no more thoughts that anything will done about NASA than I do any other gubment run entity. they will just continue to cost us more, and produce less. ---the aphids of this fine country will continue to be milked to death. cause that is the bottom line. Milk um till they bleed, then give them a band aid. ---Nothin ever changes.
 
Skateguy said:
I have no more thoughts that anything will done about NASA than I do any other gubment run entity. they will just continue to cost us more, and produce less. ---the aphids of this fine country will continue to be milked to death. cause that is the bottom line. Milk um till they bleed, then give them a band aid. ---Nothin ever changes.
Click to expand...

Have you not read ANYTHING that I have posted? NASA does not produce less. For every dollar spent on it, it brings in 7-8 dollars.
 
Skateguy said:
Brings in to Who??-- I didn't get a refund. Maybe you did.
Click to expand...

Part of it no doubt goes towards all the socialist programs that so many enjoy. Other parts of it no doubt goes towards things like roads or even more research.

Just because YOU don't see any tangible effects (mainly due to ignorance on the subject) does not mean that there are none.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Part of it no doubt goes towards all the socialist programs that so many enjoy. Other parts of it no doubt goes towards things like roads or even more research.

Just because YOU don't see any tangible effects (mainly due to ignorance on the subject) does not mean that there are none.
Click to expand...
It is Christmas, no point in being rude--it's just a discussion.
 
UtahBill said:
We have known for decades that there are no habitable planets within many, many light years of earth,
Click to expand...

NASA has other missions besides detecting habitable planets. And we have NOT known that for decades. In fact, we still don't know that. NASA just discovered the first terrestrial extrasolar planet this year.

UtahBill said:
and that man cannot live in space long enough to get to even the nearest uninhabitable planet. So, why do we still pursue the impossible with so much money?
Click to expand...

A) You are confusing "impossible" with "beyond current technical capabilities."
B) Really it isn't even beyond current technical capabilities to send someone to Mars if we wanted to. There's just no reason to do so.
C) NASA has other missions besides sending men to nearby uninhabitable planets.

UtahBill said:
should we bankrupt the nation for useless knowledge?
Click to expand...

You only consider it "useless knowledge" because you are laboring under a misconception of what NASA does. NASA's most important missions are knowledge-gathering missions with probes and computers, not human exploration missions.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Have you not read ANYTHING that I have posted? NASA does not produce less. For every dollar spent on it, it brings in 7-8 dollars.
Click to expand...
who says? NASA PR people?:2razz:
 
I'll say it one more time--those that think is worth the money, should be the ones to pay for it. Do I ask anyone to pay for my pet projects?? No, that would be presumptuous of me.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That is already one of NASA's main projects.

Wind Energy Research Reaps Rewards Wind Energy.

Solar Energy for Space Exploration Solar energy - The technology found for this can be used here on Earth..not just space.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Click to expand...

I love it when people suggest that SUPPLEMENTAL forms of energy are considered alternates....it just isn't so. Wind and solar energy demand a huge land footprint per KWHr.....and will probably never be a substantial percentage of our electric energy mix. ANd when wind/solar are talked up as part of a plan to use less OIL, it behooves us to remember that oil is used so little in the production of electricity that we could say it isn't used at all. Back in the 70's we used bunker oil quite a bit, but no more. Until we have millions, many millions, of electric cars, no alternate or supplental form of electricity generation will play a part in the reduction of our oil usage.
At the moment Nuclear is the only answer to our electricity needs. Nearly every engineer or scientist who understand physics and chemistry knows this already.
NASA serves a purpose here, putting up satellites that study the earth's geography with the purpose of finding more oil.....
 
I always thought NASA was in the "wind" business.---but then we had a windmill when I was a Kid. Excuse me for not being impressed.
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
I'll say it one more time--those that think is worth the money, should be the ones to pay for it. Do I ask anyone to pay for my pet projects?? No, that would be presumptuous of me.
Click to expand...

Agree...
MY pet project would be to build all new buildings, homes included, to new standards that are aimed at reducing the heating and cooling needs to less than half of currently accepted amounts....
That would probablly save enough energy to preclude the building of most supposedly needed new power plants....
 
UtahBill said:
Agree...
MY pet project would be to build all new buildings, homes included, to new standards that are aimed at reducing the heating and cooling needs to less than half of currently accepted amounts....
That would probablly save enough energy to preclude the building of most supposedly needed new power plants....
Click to expand...
I would vote for you to get some money.--those are useful things. I have a trunk full of star dust all ready from my last trip home.
 
UtahBill said:
I love it when people suggest that SUPPLEMENTAL forms of energy are considered alternates....it just isn't so. Wind and solar energy demand a huge land footprint per KWHr.....and will probably never be a substantial percentage of our electric energy mix. ANd when wind/solar are talked up as part of a plan to use less OIL, it behooves us to remember that oil is used so little in the production of electricity that we could say it isn't used at all. Back in the 70's we used bunker oil quite a bit, but no more. Until we have millions, many millions, of electric cars, no alternate or supplental form of electricity generation will play a part in the reduction of our oil usage.
At the moment Nuclear is the only answer to our electricity needs. Nearly every engineer or scientist who understand physics and chemistry knows this already.
NASA serves a purpose here, putting up satellites that study the earth's geography with the purpose of finding more oil.....
Click to expand...

Things are moving fast in the solar, energy storage, and algae oil fronts. Companies to watch: Eestor, Saphire Energy, Nano Solar, Solasta, and a real dark horse Solar Roadways. I love "green"oil as a transitional fuel to electric because it uses the current infrastructure.
 
laska said:
Things are moving fast in the solar, energy storage, and algae oil fronts. Companies to watch: Eestor, Saphire Energy, Nano Solar, Solasta, and a real dark horse Solar Roadways. I love "green"oil as a transitional fuel to electric because it uses the current infrastructure.
Click to expand...
All competitive company's that strive to make a profit for their Projects, thus they have incentive.---NASA has no incentive. they have gubment Jobs for life.
 
Skateguy said:
Everything has just gotten bloated, and out of control. ---We need a leaner meaner system, that has it's priorities straight. take car of the Guys on the ground, if they just have to be there, and give them the best Equipment. Better rifles, better Armour. It's out there, and we all know it.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you even talking about? NASA's budget has actually decreased. Whereas in the 60s it wasn't unnatural for NASA to go way past 4% in terms of our national budget - today it would be lucky if it got past 0.7%. Seriously. Just because you keep saying NASA is too expensive, does NOT make it so.

Your constant trolling on this matter is getting annoying. Either explain why NASA should be cut ahead of any other project or quit your trolling. You've done nothing but repeat the same vitriol for 15 pages. You haven't provided a SINGLE valid reason as to why NASA should be done away with. Your point that NASA is not productive has been shown to be false. Your point that NASA and the government has no incentive to continue the space has been proven to be false. The creation of new technology is in the best interest of not just the U.S. government but its people. It may sound corny but modern democratic governments do not have an interest in a population which does not have access to education. When they can provide it? They do. NASA has been quintessential in providing volumes of knowledge that kids use today in our schools. Not only that but the information it freely provides has created revenue not only for the government but for the private sector.

You simply have no dog in this fight. You're just trolling now. We The People have decided to fund NASA by democratically electing representatives who will vote for its funding. If you don't like it? Move to Morocco.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom