• 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!

Trump Sets 2033 Mission to Mars

Crovax said:
I didnt realize that "space travel" meant colonize
Click to expand...

Well now you do, go pat yourself on the back and run along now.
 
Praxas said:
Well now you do, go pat yourself on the back and run along now.
Click to expand...

No I still dont, because I speak English where "space travel" and "colonize" arent synonyms
 
Well, if my writing career doesn't take off, I know something else that will. ;)
 
rocket88 said:
Unless He does something drastic, he won't be President in 2033, and in fact will have been out of office for some time.

What I'm saying is that we'll be 2 or 3 Presidents down the road by then.
Click to expand...

Yeah and as Trump has shown more than any other in history, all it takes is an EO by the next to completely reverse anything he has set in motion

I'm sure when that happens whether it's to for profit prisons or travel bans or transgender protections, he'll cry endlessly
 
ModerateGOP said:
The budget has mostly 0 cuts to the space agency and sets it up to be even more space-faring than it has been.

https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-nasa-mars-mission-reauthorization-transition-bill/

White House budget proposal targets ARM, Earth science missions, education - SpaceNews.com
Click to expand...

I can see several problems with this.

First, the current budget is not enough to pay for a manned Mars mission. It will have to be increased. By a lot.

Second, Trump's successor as POTUS can easily get rid of the future budget allocations and doom the whole thing. The reason why the Apollo missions were successful is that it was done within two consecutive administrations (JFK was bowing to the public because of fears that the Russians would get there first, LBJ was very NASA friendly but the support ran out when he left office).

Third, there's no compelling economic argument for a Mars mission. In order to stay on Mars there has to be something over there that's worth going for. Otherwise it will be a couple of missions tops for publicity and then its over, just like what happened to the moon.
 
Crovax said:
You do realize that we have already done that
Click to expand...

Not the colonization. THe moon would actually be a fairly good place to get deuterium.
 
PoS said:
I can see several problems with this.

First, the current budget is not enough to pay for a manned Mars mission. It will have to be increased. By a lot.

Second, Trump's successor as POTUS can easily get rid of the future budget allocations and doom the whole thing. The reason why the Apollo missions were successful is that it was done within two consecutive administrations (JFK was bowing to the public because of fears that the Russians would get there first, LBJ was very NASA friendly but the support ran out when he left office).

Third, there's no compelling economic argument for a Mars mission. In order to stay on Mars there has to be something over there that's worth going for. Otherwise it will be a couple of missions tops for publicity and then its over, just like what happened to the moon.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure budget allocations are done by Congress, not the President. And as we have seen with this President, the last President, and the President before that, a Presidents budget is not so easily implemented.

I think the Moon missions have proven an economic return on the dollars spent. I would predict that any inventions stemming from Mars travel would be an even bigger contributor.
 
natsb said:
I am pretty sure budget allocations are done by Congress, not the President. And as we have seen with this President, the last President, and the President before that, a Presidents budget is not so easily implemented.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the space program, congress usually follows the president's lead.

I think the Moon missions have proven an economic return on the dollars spent.
Click to expand...
We have not been back there since Nixon. That tells you something.

I would predict that any inventions stemming from Mars travel would be an even bigger contributor.
Click to expand...
You can predict all you want, but there isn't any compelling reason for us to go there as of yet other than just for prestige.
 
DA60 said:
I have an alternative...
Click to expand...
Every thread that mentions NASA, this guy has to show up and chime in.

end all government funding to NASA and if the masses want it so badly, they can finance it directly? And if they refuse, then I guess it should die off. How monumentally stupid can you be to actually think something should be funded by the government when the masses don't give a crap about it enough to fund it themselves.
Click to expand...
The masses didn't give a crap enough to fund a military, so we shouldn't have a military!

How monumentally stupid do you have to be in order to think only privately-funded things should exist?

'Well, the taxpayers don't want to fund it. SO I guess we will have to force the taxpayers to fund it.' Oh....that's brilliant... :roll:
Click to expand...
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ns-overwhelmingly-support-manned-mars-mission

The private sector can do ANYTHING NASA can do at ZIP cost to taxpayers and do it better, faster and far, FAR more efficiently (and probably cost fewer astronaut deaths) than NASA ever could.
Click to expand...
Can they? Probably. But they haven't, and they wont. They didn't go to the moon, they didn't send probes to Mars and beyond. They didn't rendezvous with a comet and they didn't build a research station in orbit. Because it's not profitable to do so.

There is something deeply wrong with America when Meals on Wheel's federal money is cut while NASA still flies around for billions of dollars, doing mostly useless things.
Click to expand...
No, there's something deeply wrong with America when Meals on Wheels' federal money is cut while the bloated military budget increases further. In your world, Meals on Wheels wouldn't actually exist because private citizens didn't fund it.

What is more important? Feeding a lonely, American senior...or flying some scientist to the ISS to do virtually nothing of any practical value to 99% of Americans?
Click to expand...
We can do both of those things and both of them are important.
And if an asteroid threatens the planet? Let the military handle it. God knows they got enough nukes to help blow the thing to bits.
Click to expand...
They wont be capable of doing anything about it in your ideal world because we wouldn't know enough about space travel to pull it off.

And you NASA/space lovers got a problem with this...I don't give a ****. Why? Because you are wrong (on this) and I am right.

Have a GREAT day. And enjoy your Tang tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You are wrong and I am right. Enjoy your constellation of GPS, weather, and communications satellites tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
When it comes to the space program, congress usually follows the president's lead.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence of this. Congress usually follows their own budget interest. It they meet somewhere, that would be a coincidence.


We have not been back there since Nixon. That tells you something.
Click to expand...

Yes, it tells me that we have lost our way, and need to get back on track.

You can predict all you want, but there isn't any compelling reason for us to go there as of yet other than just for prestige.
Click to expand...

My prediction is based on sound history of the space program. There are lots of compelling reasons for advancements in technology. We need better answers for energy, food, transportation, and medicine just to name a few. We should be looking for those answers everywhere.

Of course, there where those who were complacent with horse and buggy, quills, abacus, and medical bleeding at points in history. I am sure when the nay-sayers are dropping a one year battery into their new electric car, they will be silently glad they were ignored.
 
natsb said:
I have seen no evidence of this. Congress usually follows their own budget interest. It they meet somewhere, that would be a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Show me a link that proves its the Congress who creates space initiatives.

Yes, it tells me that we have lost our way, and need to get back on track.
Click to expand...
On track for what? It costs money to go to the moon and there wasn't anything to show for it. The public got bored and thats why we stopped going there.

My prediction is based on sound history of the space program. There are lots of compelling reasons for advancements in technology. We need better answers for energy, food, transportation, and medicine just to name a few. We should be looking for those answers everywhere.
Click to expand...
How does going into space solve any of those problems? Show me an instance that it did.

The only way manned spaceflight becomes viable long term is that there must be an economic benefit to it.
 
PoS said:
Show me a link that proves its the Congress who creates space initiatives.
Click to expand...

If you need a link that shows it is Congress that has the power of the purse strings, then we are not at the same level of how the Government works.

On track for what? It costs money to go to the moon and there wasn't anything to show for it. The public got bored and thats why we stopped going there.
Click to expand...

The "S" in NASA is what they need to get back on track with. Nothing to show for it??? Spend just a little time at NASA in their technology transfer program, and try again.


How does going into space solve any of those problems? Show me an instance that it did.

The only way manned spaceflight becomes viable long term is that there must be an economic benefit to it.
Click to expand...

Again, spend just a little time in the technology transfer section of the NASA web site. There are all kinds of technologies that were invented to solve space travel issues that are now used everyday here on Earth. They even have a Mars section to show what technology is being worked on to solve anticipated problems. If you don't see an economic benefit to clean air, clean water, food growth in low water, energy generation, and energy storage, then I am not sure I can convince you of any economic benefit.
 
natsb said:
The "S" in NASA is what they need to get back on track with. Nothing to show for it??? Spend just a little time at NASA in their technology transfer program, and try again.




Again, spend just a little time in the technology transfer section of the NASA web site. There are all kinds of technologies that were invented to solve space travel issues that are now used everyday here on Earth. They even have a Mars section to show what technology is being worked on to solve anticipated problems. If you don't see an economic benefit to clean air, clean water, food growth in low water, energy generation, and energy storage, then I am not sure I can convince you of any economic benefit.
Click to expand...

You havent proven anything. Stop pointing to a website and show me specifically how the space program improved our lives. Give me an example.

If you need a link that shows it is Congress that has the power of the purse strings, then we are not at the same level of how the Government works.
Click to expand...
As Ive said before, Congress follows the president when it comes to the space program. We stopped going to the moon because Nixon said so.
 
PoS said:
You havent proven anything. Stop pointing to a website and show me specifically how the space program improved our lives. Give me an example.


As Ive said before, Congress follows the president when it comes to the space program. We stopped going to the moon because Nixon said so.
Click to expand...

I'll point to a web site with thousands of examples as much as I wish to. If you are concerned with the fragility of your argument, I understand. You are free to go or not go as you wish.

Your tone seems to be escalating, so I will bid you farewell while things are still friendly.
 
Deuce said:
E

The masses didn't give a crap enough to fund a military, so we shouldn't have a military!

How monumentally stupid do you have to be in order to think only privately-funded things should exist?

.
Click to expand...

They did though. The states unanimously ratified giving the congress power to spend money raising a military. I havent seen any such support for NASA. Lets vote on an amendment to spend on space exploration and see if it gets 3/4 state support.
 
jonny5 said:
They did though. The states unanimously ratified giving the congress power to spend money raising a military. I havent seen any such support for NASA. Lets vote on an amendment to spend on space exploration and see if it gets 3/4 state support.
Click to expand...

Article 1 said:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
Click to expand...
Ratified, dude.

Granted, that line talks about copyrights and whatnot, but clearly this is something that was in the minds of the guys writing the thing.

But that's beside the point. DA60 thinks if the public doesn't specifically give money to something, it shouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
natsb said:
I'll point to a web site with thousands of examples as much as I wish to. If you are concerned with the fragility of your argument, I understand. You are free to go or not go as you wish.

Your tone seems to be escalating, so I will bid you farewell while things are still friendly.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm just asking you to prove your points. Have a nice day.
 
Deuce said:
Ratified, dude.

Granted, that line talks about copyrights and whatnot, but clearly this is something that was in the minds of the guys writing the thing.

But that's beside the point. DA60 thinks if the public doesn't specifically give money to something, it shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

That part about copyrights and whatnot is pretty important to that sentence. The first part is the purpose. The second part is the power.
 
jonny5 said:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

That part about copyrights and whatnot is pretty important to that sentence. The first part is the purpose. The second part is the power.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's important.

But being a leader in science is important to America's security and prosperity.
 
Kobie said:
Yay for Donald Trump, talking up something that won't happen until he is long dead.
Click to expand...

His ashes will go on the first shuttle over... they'll blend right in with the martian landscape.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, it's important.

But being a leader in science is important to America's security and prosperity.
Click to expand...

Then pass an amendment giving the govt power to spend on science unrelated to existing powers. If its popular it will pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom